On 2014-04-04 12:56:55 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote: > > > On 04.04.2014, at 09:40, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'm not sure how much additional work is required to sort this out, > > but to me it looks more realistic to target 9.5 than 9.4, so at this > > point I tend to think that the patch ought to be marked as returned > > with feedback. > > I think the patch is worthwhile, even without this additional > optimization. In fact, If the optimization was part of the patch, > there would probably be calls to factor it out, on the ground that the > patch is already rather large. > > I don't see what bumping the whole thing to 9.5 buys, compared do > applying what we have now, and optimizing in 9.5 further.
>From my POV applying this patch can't be considered a very high priority for 9.4x. It came *really* late to the game for a relatively complex patch. A significant portion of the development only happened *after* the start of the last commitfest. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
