On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 5:32 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> I've committed 0001 through 0003 as revised by Mark in accordance with
> the comments from Suraj. Here's the last patch again with a tweak to
> try not to break the Windows build, per some off-list advice I
> received on how not to break the Win
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 9:03 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:26 AM Mark Dilger
> wrote:
> > I have made these changes and rebased Robert’s patches but otherwise
> > changed nothing. Here they are:
>
> Thanks. Anyone else have comments? I think this is pretty
> straightforward
> On Feb 14, 2020, at 8:29 AM, David Fetter wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 08:16:47AM -0800, Mark Dilger wrote:
>>> On Feb 14, 2020, at 8:15 AM, David Fetter wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:33:04AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:26 AM Mark Dilger
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 08:16:47AM -0800, Mark Dilger wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 2020, at 8:15 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:33:04AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:26 AM Mark Dilger
> >> wrote:
> >>> I have made these changes and rebased Robert’
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 11:15 AM David Fetter wrote:
> One question. It might be possible to make these functions faster
> using compiler intrinsics. Would those still be available to front-end
> code?
Why not? We use the same compiler for frontend code as we do for
backend code. Possibly you mig
> On Feb 14, 2020, at 8:15 AM, David Fetter wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:33:04AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:26 AM Mark Dilger
>> wrote:
>>> I have made these changes and rebased Robert’s patches but
>>> otherwise changed nothing. Here they are:
>>
>> Th
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:33:04AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:26 AM Mark Dilger
> wrote:
> > I have made these changes and rebased Robert’s patches but
> > otherwise changed nothing. Here they are:
>
> Thanks. Anyone else have comments? I think this is pretty
> straig
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:26 AM Mark Dilger
wrote:
> I have made these changes and rebased Robert’s patches but otherwise changed
> nothing. Here they are:
Thanks. Anyone else have comments? I think this is pretty
straightforward and unobjectionable work so I'm inclined to press
forward with c
> On Feb 13, 2020, at 3:44 AM, Suraj Kharage
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have spent some time reviewing the patches and overall it looks good to me.
>
> However, I have few cosmetic review comments for 0003 patch as below;
>
> 1:
> +++ b/src/backend/utils/hash/hashfn.c
> @@ -16,15 +16,14 @@
>
Hi,
I have spent some time reviewing the patches and overall it looks good to
me.
However, I have few cosmetic review comments for 0003 patch as below;
1:
+++ b/src/backend/utils/hash/hashfn.c
@@ -16,15 +16,14 @@
* It is expected that every bit of a hash function's 32-bit result is
* as ra
10 matches
Mail list logo
