comment line where output as too long, and update typedefs for /lib
directory. Also fix case where identifiers were used as variable names
in the backend, but as typedefs in ecpg (favor the backend for
indenting).
Backpatch to 8.1.X.
Also performed an initial run through of upgrading our Copyright date to
extend to 2005 ... first run here was very simple ... change everything
where: grep 1996-2004 && the word 'Copyright' ... scanned through the
generated list with 'less' first, and after, to make sure that I only
picked up the right entries ...
that it's good to join where there are join clauses rather than where there
are not. Also enable it to generate bushy plans at need, so that it doesn't
fail in the presence of multiple IN clauses containing sub-joins. These
changes appear to improve the behavior enough that we can substantially reduce
the default pool size and generations count, thereby decreasing the runtime,
and yet get as good or better plans as we were getting in 7.4. Consequently,
adjust the default GEQO parameters. I also modified the way geqo_effort is
used so that it affects both population size and number of generations;
it's now useful as a single control to adjust the GEQO runtime-vs-plan-quality
tradeoff. Bump geqo_threshold to 12, since even with these changes GEQO
seems to be slower than the regular planner at 11 relations.
query representation. Note that GEQO_RELS setting is now interpreted
as the number of top-level items in the FROM list, not necessarily the
number of relations in the query. This seems appropriate since we are
only doing join-path searching over the top-level items.
yyerror ones from bison. It also includes a few 'enhancements' to
the C programming style (which are, of course, personal).
The other patch removes the compilation of backend/lib/qsort.c, as
qsort() is a standard function in stdlib.h and can be used any
where else (and it is). It was only used in
backend/optimizer/geqo/geqo_pool.c, backend/optimizer/path/predmig.c,
and backend/storage/page/bufpage.c
> > Some or all of these changes might not be appropriate for v6.3,
since we > > are in beta testing and since they do not affect the
current functionality. > > For those cases, how about submitting
patches based on the final v6.3 > > release?
There's more to come. Please review these patches. I ran the
regression tests and they only failed where this was expected
(random, geo, etc).
Cheers,
Jeroen
