Hi,
31.03.2023 17:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
31.03.2023 15:55, Tom Lane wrote:
See also the thread about bug #16329 [1]. Alexander promised to look
into improving the test coverage in this area, maybe he can keep an
eye on the WAL logic coverage too.
Yes, I'm going to analyze that area too.
Hi,
On 2023-04-02 13:03:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2023-04-02 12:38:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> If they have to run serially then that means that their runtime
> >> contributes 1-for-1 to the total runtime of the core regression tests,
> >> which is not nice at al
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2023-04-02 12:38:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If they have to run serially then that means that their runtime
>> contributes 1-for-1 to the total runtime of the core regression tests,
>> which is not nice at all.
> Agreed, it's not nice. At least reasonably quick (74ms
Hi,
On 2023-04-02 12:38:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2023-04-01 06:02:47 +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> >> +1 to put them in gist.sql and hash_index.sql.
>
> > Unfortunately it turns out that running them in a parallel group reliably
> > prevents cleanup of the dea
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2023-04-01 06:02:47 +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>> +1 to put them in gist.sql and hash_index.sql.
> Unfortunately it turns out that running them in a parallel group reliably
> prevents cleanup of the dead rows, at least on my machine. Thereby preventing
> any increa
Hi,
On 2023-04-01 06:02:47 +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> On 4/1/23 1:13 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2023-03-31 17:00:00 +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> > > 31.03.2023 15:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > See also the thread about bug #16329 [1]. Alexander promised to look
> > > > into improvin
Hi,
On 4/1/23 1:13 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2023-03-31 17:00:00 +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
31.03.2023 15:55, Tom Lane wrote:
See also the thread about bug #16329 [1]. Alexander promised to look
into improving the test coverage in this area, maybe he can keep an
eye on the WAL logi
Hi,
On 2023-03-31 17:00:00 +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> 31.03.2023 15:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> > See also the thread about bug #16329 [1]. Alexander promised to look
> > into improving the test coverage in this area, maybe he can keep an
> > eye on the WAL logic coverage too.
>
> Yes, I'm going
Hi,
On 2023-03-31 10:45:51 +0300, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 8:07 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > I was working on committing patch 0001 from [1] and was a bit confused about
> > some of the changes to the WAL format for gist and hash index vacuum. It
> > looked to me that th
31.03.2023 15:55, Tom Lane wrote:
See also the thread about bug #16329 [1]. Alexander promised to look
into improving the test coverage in this area, maybe he can keep an
eye on the WAL logic coverage too.
Yes, I'm going to analyze that area too. Maybe it'll take more time
(a week or two) if I
Andrey Borodin writes:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 8:07 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>> Turns out the problem is that we don't reach deletion for hash and gist
>> vacuum:
> GiST logs deletions in gistXLogUpdate(), which is covered.
> gistXLogDelete() is only used for cleaning during page splits. I'd
>
Hi!
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 8:07 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> I was working on committing patch 0001 from [1] and was a bit confused about
> some of the changes to the WAL format for gist and hash index vacuum. It
> looked to me that the changed code just flat out would not work.
>
> Turns out the
12 matches
Mail list logo
