On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here second part of the comment (but have not yet advanced ..) seems > to be slightly misleading because this state has nothing to do with > the advancement of scan keys. > > I have not changed this because I am not sure what you have in mind.
OK, I rewrote that to be (hopefully) more clear. > I have verified all your changes and they look good to me. Cool. Committed. I also changed the wait event to be BtreePage in the docs + pg_stat_activity, and moved it into alphabetical order in the switch and the enum. >> I can't easily test this because your second patch doesn't apply, > > I have tried and it works for me on latest code except for one test > output file which could have been excluded. I wonder whether you are > first applying the GUC related patch [1] before applying the optimizer > support related patch. In anycase, to avoid confusion I am attaching > all the three patches with this e-mail. Oh, duh. I forgot about the prerequisite patch. Sorry. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
