Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm taking my name off as committer and marking it "Ready for
> Committer". If someone else wants to comment on the issues where
> Tom and Kyotaro-san still seem unsatisfied to the point where I
> can get my head around it, I could maybe take it back on as
> committer -- if anyone feels that could be a net win.
I'll pick it up. In a quick scan I see some things I don't like, but
nothing insoluble:
* Having plancat.c initialize the per-IndexOptInfo restriction lists seems
fairly bizarre. I realize that Tomas or Kyotaro probably did that in
response to my complaint about having check_partial_indexes have
side-effects on non-partial indexes, but this isn't an improvement. For
one thing, it means we will produce an incorrect plan if more restriction
clauses are added to the rel after plancat.c runs, as the comment for
check_partial_indexes contemplates. (I *think* that comment may be
obsolete, but I'm not sure.) I think a better answer to that complaint is
to rename check_partial_indexes to something else, and more importantly
adjust its header comment to reflect its expanded responsibilities --- as
the patch I was commenting on at the time failed to do.
* It took me some time to convince myself that the patch doesn't break
generation of plans for EvalPlanQual. I eventually found where it
skips removal of restrictions for target relations, but that's drastically
undercommented.
* Likewise, there's inadequate documentation of why it doesn't break
bitmap scans, which also have to be able to recheck correctly.
* I'm not sure that we have any regression test cases covering the
above two points, but we should.
* The comments leave a lot to be desired in general, eg there are
repeated failures to update comments only a few lines away from a change.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
