On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 09:29:17PM +0500, Ibrar Ahmed wrote:
> > Did you modify Claudio's patch or write a totally new one?
>
> I wrote completely new patch. I tried multiple techniques like using a list
> instead of fixed size array which I thought was most suitable here, but
> leave that because
On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 09:04:34PM +0500, Ibrar Ahmed wrote:
> Here is the latest patch rebased with master
> (19db23bcbda99e93321cb0636677ec9c6e121a2a) Fri Apr 3 12:20:42 2020. Patch
> fix all the issues, after the parallel vacuum patch. The patch works in
> case of a non-parallel option and allo
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 6:35 PM David Steele wrote:
> On 1/28/20 1:36 PM, Ibrar Ahmed wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:17 AM k.jami...@fujitsu.com
> > I might have missed something more,
> >
> > but I'll continue reviewing after the rebased patch.
> >
> > Yes, I am working on
On 1/28/20 1:36 PM, Ibrar Ahmed wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:17 AM k.jami...@fujitsu.com
I might have missed something more,
but I'll continue reviewing after the rebased patch.
Yes, I am working on that. I will send the rebased and updated patch.
This patch has not had
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:17 AM k.jami...@fujitsu.com <
k.jami...@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Hi Ibrar,
>
>
>
> Are you still working on this patch?
>
> Currently the patch does not apply mainly because of
>
> recent commits for parallel vacuum have updated the files in this patch.
>
> Kindly rebase it
Hi Ibrar,
Are you still working on this patch?
Currently the patch does not apply mainly because of
recent commits for parallel vacuum have updated the files in this patch.
Kindly rebase it and change the status to "Needs Review" after.
Upon quick scan of another thread [1] mentioned above,
I bel
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:29 PM Ibrar Ahmed wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 7:29 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:02 PM Ibrar Ahmed wrote:
>> >> Did you see this thread?
>> >>
>> https://postgr.es/m/CAGTBQpbDCaR6vv9=scXzuT8fSbckf=a3ngzdwfwzbdvugvh...@mail.gmail.com
>> >>
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 7:29 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:02 PM Ibrar Ahmed wrote:
> >> Did you see this thread?
> >>
> https://postgr.es/m/CAGTBQpbDCaR6vv9=scXzuT8fSbckf=a3ngzdwfwzbdvugvh...@mail.gmail.com
> >>
> > Yes, and somehow did what is explained.
>
> Did you modify C
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:02 PM Ibrar Ahmed wrote:
>> Did you see this thread?
>> https://postgr.es/m/CAGTBQpbDCaR6vv9=scXzuT8fSbckf=a3ngzdwfwzbdvugvh...@mail.gmail.com
>>
> Yes, and somehow did what is explained.
Did you modify Claudio's patch or write a totally new one? In either
case, why did y
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 4:37 PM Greg Stark wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 at 14:03, Ibrar Ahmed wrote:
> > I'd
> > actually argue that the segment size should be substantially smaller
> > than 1 GB, like say 64MB; there are still some people running systems
> > which are small enough that allocating
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 at 14:03, Ibrar Ahmed wrote:
> I'd
> actually argue that the segment size should be substantially smaller
> than 1 GB, like say 64MB; there are still some people running systems
> which are small enough that allocating 1 GB when we may need only 6
> bytes can drive the system in
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 11:54 PM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2019-Dec-09, Ibrar Ahmed wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > The memory consumption of VACUUM has some issues and could be improved.
> > Some of its limitations are recorded in the comments of the
> “vacuumlazy.c”
> > file. The current design of VAC
On 2019-Dec-09, Ibrar Ahmed wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The memory consumption of VACUUM has some issues and could be improved.
> Some of its limitations are recorded in the comments of the “vacuumlazy.c”
> file. The current design of VACUUM memory usage is that it stores the TID
> in a fixed-size array whi
13 matches
Mail list logo
