On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 04:45, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On 1/14/24 12:18, vignesh C wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 at 20:17, Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7/9/23 23:44, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >>> ...
> > Yes, my previous message was mostly about backwards compatibility, and
> > this m
On 1/14/24 12:18, vignesh C wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 at 20:17, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/9/23 23:44, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> ...
> Yes, my previous message was mostly about backwards compatibility, and
> this may seem a bit like an argument against it. But that message was
>
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 at 20:17, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On 7/9/23 23:44, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > ...
> >>> Yes, my previous message was mostly about backwards compatibility, and
> >>> this may seem a bit like an argument against it. But that message was
> >>> more a question "If we do this, is it ac
On 7/9/23 23:44, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> ...
>>> Yes, my previous message was mostly about backwards compatibility, and
>>> this may seem a bit like an argument against it. But that message was
>>> more a question "If we do this, is it actually backwards compatible the
>>> way we want/need?")
>>>
>>>
On 7/9/23 20:05, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 09/07/2023 19:16, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 7/8/23 23:57, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> The new preprocess support function feels a bit too inflexible to me.
>>> True, you can store whatever you want in the ScanKey that it returns,
>>> but since that'
On 09/07/2023 19:16, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 7/8/23 23:57, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
The new preprocess support function feels a bit too inflexible to me.
True, you can store whatever you want in the ScanKey that it returns,
but since that's the case, why not just make it void * ? It seems that
t
On 7/8/23 23:57, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 02/07/2023 19:09, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Here's an updated version of the patch series.
>>
>> I've polished and pushed the first three patches with cleanup, tests to
>> improve test coverage and so on. I chose not to backpatch those - I
>> planned to
On 02/07/2023 19:09, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Here's an updated version of the patch series.
I've polished and pushed the first three patches with cleanup, tests to
improve test coverage and so on. I chose not to backpatch those - I
planned to do that to make future backpatches simpler, but the chang
On 2/24/23 22:07, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I had a quick look at just the preliminary cleanup patches:
>
>> 0001-BRIN-bloom-cleanup-20230218.patch
>
> Looks good to me
>
>> 0002-BRIN-minmax-multi-cleanup-20230218.patch
>
> Looks good, although it would feel more natural to me to do it the ot
I had a quick look at just the preliminary cleanup patches:
0001-BRIN-bloom-cleanup-20230218.patch
Looks good to me
0002-BRIN-minmax-multi-cleanup-20230218.patch
Looks good, although it would feel more natural to me to do it the other
way round, and define 'matches' as 'bool matches', and
10 matches
Mail list logo
