On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I have prepared separate patches for hash and btree index. I think >> for another type of indexes, it is better to first fix the pd_lower >> issue. > > Just wondering (sorry I have not looked at your patch in details)... > Have you tested the compressibility effects of this patch on FPWs with > and without wal_compression? >
I have debugged it to see that it is executing the code path to eliminate the hole for the hash index. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
