Re: Re: patch: fix performance problems with repated decomprimation of varlena values in plpgsql

On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 10:24:03AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Well, Pavel's subsequent reply suggested that he didn't test exactly
> this thing, so maybe there's hope.

No hope on that basis, no.

> Or maybe not.  If Tom thought one branch inside exec_eval_datum() was
> going to be too expensive, four isn't going to be better.

He was commenting on a proposal equivalent to yours.  You might want to reread
this thread in its entirety; we're coming full circle.

> But I think we're out of time to work on this for this cycle.  Even if
> my latest idea is brilliant (and it may not be), we still have to test
> it in a variety of cases and get consensus on it, which seems like
> more than we can manage right now.  I think it's time to mark this one
> Returned with Feedback, or perhaps Rejected would be more accurate in
> this instance.

It's not as if this patch raised complex questions that folks need more time to
digest.  For a patch this small and simple, we minimally owe Pavel a direct
answer about its rejection.

Thanks,
nm