On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 09:14:14AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Sure. aef8948 gets down because of the performance impact. ccf4e27
> was a cleanup following up aef8948, that loses its meaning. And
> c3826f8 cannot be let alone because of the reasons why aef8948 was
> introduced, as it has no
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 09:39:30AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> OK, but the commit message should explain why they're getting reverted.
Sure. aef8948 gets down because of the performance impact. ccf4e27
was a cleanup following up aef8948, that loses its meaning. And
c3826f8 cannot be let alone beca
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 12:34:45AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:26 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Uh, I don't see those commits, e.g.:
>>
>> $ git diff 0d70d30
>> fatal: ambiguous argument '0d70d30': unknown revision or path not in
>> the working tree.
>>
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:26 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 09:39:30AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Michael Paquier writes:
> > > In short, I am planning to address this regression with the attached,
> > > for a combined revert of 0d70d30, 5c33ba5 and 92436a7.
> >
> > OK, but
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 09:39:30AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > In short, I am planning to address this regression with the attached,
> > for a combined revert of 0d70d30, 5c33ba5 and 92436a7.
>
> OK, but the commit message should explain why they're getting reverted.
Uh,
Michael Paquier writes:
> In short, I am planning to address this regression with the attached,
> for a combined revert of 0d70d30, 5c33ba5 and 92436a7.
OK, but the commit message should explain why they're getting reverted.
regards, tom lane
Em ter., 17 de ago. de 2021 às 00:43, Michael Paquier
escreveu:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 02:06:31PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > uint64 and size_t in 64 bits are equivalents.
> > uint64 and size_t in 32 bits can be weird, but anyway size_t at 32 bits
> can
> > handle 1GB.
>
> There is usually
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 02:06:31PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> uint64 and size_t in 64 bits are equivalents.
> uint64 and size_t in 32 bits can be weird, but anyway size_t at 32 bits can
> handle 1GB.
There is usually a reason why things are done as they are, so before
suggesting changing someth
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 02:58:59PM +, Hans Buschmann wrote:
> If it seems useful somebody could enter it as an open item /
> resolved item for pg14 after beta 3.
Hmm. Using SQLs like the following to stress pg_hex_encode(), I can
see a measurable difference easily, so no need of pg_dump or an
Em seg., 16 de ago. de 2021 às 13:19, Hans Buschmann
escreveu:
> --
> *Von:* Ranier Vilela
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 16. August 2021 17:04
> *An:* Hans Buschmann
> *Cc:* pgsql-hack...@postgresql.org
> *Betreff:* Re: PG14: Avoid checking output-buffe
Von: Ranier Vilela
Gesendet: Montag, 16. August 2021 17:04
An: Hans Buschmann
Cc: pgsql-hack...@postgresql.org
Betreff: Re: PG14: Avoid checking output-buffer-length for every encoded byte
during pg_hex_encode
Hello Ranier,
Thank you for your quick response
Welcome.
Em seg., 16 de ago. de 2021 às 05:46, Hans Buschmann
escreveu:
> During some development on encoding-related parts of postgres I stumbled
> over the new length-checking-code in common/hex.c/pg_hex_encode.
>
> Differently when comparing it to all versions before the
> output-buffer-lengt
During some development on encoding-related parts of postgres I stumbled over
the new length-checking-code in common/hex.c/pg_hex_encode.
Differently when comparing it to all versions before the output-buffer-length
is checked during encoding of every individual source byte.
This may impose qui
13 matches
Mail list logo
