On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 11:59:48PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> ..which should no longer be needed since it was a performance hack for
> specific
> platform snprintf, which are no longer used.
Did you check if our implementation of src/port/snprintf.c makes %*s
much slower than %s or not? FWIW,
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 1:04 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 08:56:06PM +0200, Daniel Verite wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As a follow-up to bug #16570 [1] and other previous discussions
> > on the mailing-lists, I'm checking out PG13 beta for Windows
> > from:
> > https://www.enterpr
Hi hackers,
I want to share results of my last research of implementing LSM index in
Postgres.
Most of modern databases (RocksDB, MongoDB, Tarantool,...) are using LSM
tree instead of classical B-Tree.
From one side, capacity of RAM at modern servers allows to keep the
whole database in memo
Hi hackers,
When I define a view relevant with `char varying`, it shows the type is casted
to text. See,
gpadmin=# CREATE TABLE foobar (a character varying);
CREATE TABLE
gpadmin=# CREATE VIEW fooview AS SELECT * FROM foobar WHERE a::character
varying = ANY(ARRAY['foo'::character varying, 'bar'
At Mon, 03 Aug 2020 16:20:40 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> Thanks for the opinion. I'll continue working on this.
This is it, but..
Looking closer I realized that certificates are verified in each
backend so CRL cache doesn't work at all for the hashed directory
method. Therefore,
At Tue, 4 Aug 2020 14:43:58 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote
in
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 12:00:33PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > While poking at ssl code, I noticed that 002_scram.pl fails if
> > ~/.postgresql/root.crt exists. This has been fixed once but
> > d6e612f837 reintroduced one. Th
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 19:36, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Did you check if our implementation of src/port/snprintf.c makes %*s
> much slower than %s or not? FWIW, I have just run a small test on my
> laptop, and running 100M calls of snprintf() with "%s" in a tight loop
> takes 2.7s, with "%*s" and a
> On 03-Aug-2020, at 8:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2020-Aug-03, Asim Praveen wrote:
>
>> Thank you Alvaro for reviewing the patch!
>>
>>> On 01-Aug-2020, at 7:22 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>
>>> What happens if a replacement string happens to be split in the middle
>>> by the fgets
Dave Page schrieb am 04.08.2020 um 10:06:
> Correct - updating ICU would mean a reindex is required following any
> upgrade, major or minor.
>
> I would really like to find an acceptable solution to this however as
> it really would be good to be able to update ICU.
>
What about providing a newer
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:07 AM Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 1:04 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 08:56:06PM +0200, Daniel Verite wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > As a follow-up to bug #16570 [1] and other previous discussions
>> > on the mailing-lists, I'm checki
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:29 AM Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:07 AM Dave Page wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 1:04 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 08:56:06PM +0200, Daniel Verite wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > As a follow-up to bug #16570 [1]
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 1:11 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 11:41:37AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 2:11 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > Based on commit logs, I suspect this may be an "older bug", specifically
> > > maybe
> > > with:
> > >
> > > |commit
Thank you Robert for the comments.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 9:19 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:13 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> > memory. MyLatch variable also gets created in shared mode. And having
> > no shared memory access for the worker for EXEC_BACKEND cases(in
> >
Amit-san,
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 2:55 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> However, I noticed that having system columns like ctid, xmin, etc. in
> the RETURNING list is now broken and maybe irrepairably due to the
> approach we are taking in the patch. Let me show an example:
>
> drop table foo;
> create t
Commit 13838740f fixed some issues with step generation in partition
pruning, but as I mentioned in [1], I noticed that there is yet
another issue: get_steps_using_prefix() assumes that clauses in the
passed-in prefix list are sorted in ascending order of their partition
key numbers, but the caller
Greetings,
Please don't top-post on these lists.
* SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM (satyanarlapu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Increasing checkpoint_timeout helps reduce the amount of log written to the
> disk. This has several benefits like, reduced number of WAL IO, archival
> load on the system, less networ
On 2020-08-03 19:39, Tom Lane wrote:
That's easy to fix, but it's perhaps wondering briefly why it needs to
be zero-padded. hashname() doesn't care, heap_form_tuple() doesn't
care. Does anything care?
We do have an expectation that there are no undefined bytes in values to
be stored on-disk.
On 2020-05-25 15:28, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 2019-12-02 23:52, Thomas Munro wrote:
I'm not an expert in floating point math but hopefully it means that no
type change is required - double precision can handle it.
Me neither, but the SQL standard requires us to use an exact numeric
type, so i
út 4. 8. 2020 v 16:08 odesílatel Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> napsal:
> On 2020-05-25 15:28, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 2019-12-02 23:52, Thomas Munro wrote:
> >>> I'm not an expert in floating point math but hopefully it means that no
> >>> type change is required - do
Hi, Peter!
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:23 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 4:06 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:56 AM Alexander Korotkov
> > wrote:
> > > Thank you. 2nd patch is proposed for master and makes btree page
> > > unlink remove all the items
Hi, Tomas!
Sorry for the late reply.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 6:19 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> I think there's a number of weak points in this approach.
>
> Firstly, it assumes the summaries can be represented as arrays of
> built-in types, which I'm not really sure about. It clearly is not true
> f
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 1:16 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> If you really wanted to do this,
> you'd have to describe a practical scenario under which it made sense
> to soldier on, where we'd definitely be able to count the number of
> problems in a meaningful way, without much risk of either massive
Hi!
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:22 AM Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
> I want to share results of my last research of implementing LSM index in
> Postgres.
> Most of modern databases (RocksDB, MongoDB, Tarantool,...) are using LSM tree
> instead of classical B-Tree.
I wouldn't say it that way. I wo
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 08:12:10PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> It may be this commit that went into PG 12 that is causing the problem:
Thanks for digging into this.
> to account for partitions that were pruned by the planner for which we
> decided to put 0 into relid_map, but it only considered
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 11:22:13AM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
Hi hackers,
I want to share results of my last research of implementing LSM index
in Postgres.
Most of modern databases (RocksDB, MongoDB, Tarantool,...) are using
LSM tree instead of classical B-Tree.
I was under the imp
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 05:36:51PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Hi, Tomas!
Sorry for the late reply.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 6:19 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
I think there's a number of weak points in this approach.
Firstly, it assumes the summaries can be represented as arrays of
built-in ty
Greetings,
* Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 11:22:13AM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> >two top indexes used in cyclic way and one main index. When top index
> >reaches some threshold value
> >we initiate merge with main index, done by bgworker and
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 6:11 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 11:22:13AM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> >Hi hackers,
> >
> >I want to share results of my last research of implementing LSM index
> >in Postgres.
> >Most of modern databases (RocksDB, MongoDB, Tarantool,...) are us
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 7:59 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> I think we should try not to imagine anything in particular. Just to
> be clear, I am not trying to knock what you have; I know it was a lot
> of work to create and it's a huge improvement over having nothing. But
> in my mind, a perfect tool wou
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 12:33 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> I'm not sure what I was thinking "back then", but right now I'd argue
> that the best lock against vacuum isn't a SUE, but announcing the
> correct ->xmin, so you can be sure that clog entries won't be yanked out
> from under you. Potentially
Attached is the rebased patch for consideration.
Dave Cramer
www.postgres.rocks
>
>
0001-Throw-error-and-rollback-on-a-failed-transaction-ins.patch
Description: Binary data
On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 12:33:48PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 9:55 AM vignesh C wrote:
The patches were not applying because of the recent commits.
I have rebased the patch over head & attached.
I rebased v2-0006-Parallel-Copy-For-Binary-Format-Files.patch.
Putti
> 4 авг. 2020 г., в 03:44, Peter Geoghegan написал(а):
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:46 AM Andrey M. Borodin
> wrote:
>> In this thread [0] we decided that lock coupling is necessary for
>> btree_xlog_unlink_page().
>> So, maybe let's revive this patch?
>
> Yes, let's do that. Can you resu
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:00 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> With indexes you tend to have redundancy in how relationships among
> pages are described. So you have siblings whose pointers must be in
> agreement (left points to right, right points to left), and it's not
> clear which one you should tru
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 7:27 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
> I could get these points earlier in my initial analysis. In fact, I
> could figure out the flow on Windows, how these parameters are shared
> using a shared file(CreateFileMapping(), MapViewOfFile()), and the
> shared file name being passed
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:35 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 2020-08-03 14:58, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> > May be generated and identity columns are good things. I have nothing
> > against them.
> > But what preventing us from providing the similar behavior for
> > serial/bigseries types?
>
> I
On 2020-Aug-03, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Why two transactions? The reason is that in order for this to work, we
> make a catalog change (mark it detached), and commit so that all
> concurrent transactions can see the change. A second transaction waits
> for anybody who holds any lock on the parti
On 04.08.2020 18:04, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Hi!
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:22 AM Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
I want to share results of my last research of implementing LSM index in
Postgres.
Most of modern databases (RocksDB, MongoDB, Tarantool,...) are using LSM tree
instead of classic
On 04.08.2020 18:11, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 11:22:13AM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
Hi hackers,
I want to share results of my last research of implementing LSM index
in Postgres.
Most of modern databases (RocksDB, MongoDB, Tarantool,...) are using
LSM tree instead
On 04.08.2020 18:18, Stephen Frost wrote:
Independently while considering this, I don't think the issues around
how to deal with unique btrees properly has really been considered- you
certainly can't stop your search on the first tuple you find even if the
index is unique, since the "unique"
> 30 июля 2020 г., в 06:26, Thomas Munro написал(а):
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 6:55 PM Andrey M. Borodin
> wrote:
>> Thanks! Fixed.
>
> It's not a bug, but I think those 64 bit constants should be wrapped
> in UINT64CONST(), following our convention.
Thanks, fixed!
> I'm confused about th
On 04.08.2020 19:53, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:35 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
On 2020-08-03 14:58, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
May be generated and identity columns are good things. I have nothing
against them.
But what preventing us from providing the similar behavior for
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 08:18:01PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
On 04.08.2020 18:11, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 11:22:13AM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
Hi hackers,
I want to share results of my last research of implementing LSM
index in Postgres.
Most of modern da
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 7:49 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Why two transactions? The reason is that in order for this to work, we
> make a catalog change (mark it detached), and commit so that all
> concurrent transactions can see the change. A second transaction waits
> for anybody who holds any lo
On 04.08.2020 20:44, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Unique indexes are not supported now.
And I do not see some acceptable solution here.
If we will have to check presence of duplicate at the time of insert
then it will eliminate all advantages of LSM approach.
And if we postpone to the moment of merge
If shutdown (non hot enabled) standby and promote the standby using
promote_trigger_file via pg_ctl start with -w (wait), currently pg_ctl
returns as soon as recovery is started. Instead would be helpful if
pg_ctl can wait till PM_STATUS_READY for this case, given promotion is
requested.
pg_ctl -w
Thanks Sawada and Justin.
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 at 09:33, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 16:02, Mahendra Singh Thalor wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Justin.
> >
> > On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 11:47, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 04:55:14PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:11 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> (gdb) p *pinfo->relid_map@414
> (gdb) p *partdesc->oids@415
Whoa, I didn't know about using @ in gdb to print multiple elements. Wild!
Anyway, these two arrays differ in that the latter array has 22653702
inserted at the beginning and 226288
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> Any further thoughts on this, Tom?
Sorry for slow response ... my ISP had an equipment failure that took
out my email service for most of a day.
> This is clearly a live bug that we should fix before too long. I could
> write the patch myself, but I would like to get yo
> On 3 Aug 2020, at 21:18, Andrew Dunstan
> wrote:
> On 8/3/20 12:46 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On 7/31/20 4:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> OK, here is an update of your patch that compiles and runs against NSS
>>> under Windows (VS2019).
Out of curiosity since I'm not familiar with Windows
On 2020-08-04 19:36, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
Yes, generated columns are also using implicitly generated sequences.
So them are very similar with SERIAL/BIGSERIAL columns. This actually
make we wonder why we can not handle them in the same way in
CREATE TABLE LIKE.
The current specification
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 1:31 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> The core of the issue seems to be that in the presence of concurrent
> updates, we might not have a stable opinion of which entry of the HOT
> chain is live, leading to trying to index multiple ones of them (using
> the same root TID), which leads t
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 1:31 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> while the INSERT_IN_PROGRESS case has none. Simple symmetry
>> would suggest that the INSERT_IN_PROGRESS case should be
>>
>> if (checking_uniqueness ||
>> HeapTupleIsHeapOnly(heapTuple))
>> // wa
Hi,
Yet another summary + patch + tests.
Demote now keeps backends with no active xid alive. Smart mode keeps all
backends: it waits for them to finish their xact and enter read-only. Fast
mode terminate backends wit an active xid and keeps all other ones.
Backends enters "read-only" using LocalX
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 2020-08-04 19:36, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
>> Yes, generated columns are also using implicitly generated sequences.
>> So them are very similar with SERIAL/BIGSERIAL columns. This actually
>> make we wonder why we can not handle them in the same way in
>> CREATE TA
Hi Alexander,
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 7:27 AM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Thank you for your reminder. Revised patch is attached. Now, the contents
> of deleted btree pages isn't masked. I've checked that installcheck passes
> with wal_consistency_checking='Btree'. I'm going to push this if
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 1:58 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 7:27 AM Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > Thank you for your reminder. Revised patch is attached. Now, the
> > contents of deleted btree pages isn't masked. I've checked that
> > installcheck passes with wal_consi
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 4:18 PM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Pushed. Comment is changed as you suggested. But I've replaced "last
> pivot tuple" with "remaining tuples", because the page can also have a
> high key, which is also a tuple.
You're right, of course.
Thanks again
--
Peter Geoghegan
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 7:56 PM Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
> I do not understand why do we need multiple indexes.
> We need one "hot" index which fits in memory to perform fast inserts.
> But it should not be too small to be able to accumulate substantial
> amount of records to provide efficient bu
On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 11:29 PM, Daniel Fustafsson wrote:
>Are you able to test Alvaros latest patch to see if that solves the originally
>reported problem, so that we can reach >closure on this item during the
>commitfest?
Sorry for the too late replay. I missed this mail.
And, thanks for w
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:52 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:32 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 09:26:20AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 12:11 AM Justin Pryzby
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 08:12:10PM +0900, A
On 8/2/20, 11:47 PM, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
> + VACOPT_TOAST_CLEANUP = 1 << 6, /* process TOAST table, if any */
> + VACOPT_DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING = 1 << 7, /* don't skip any pages */
> + VACOPT_MAIN_REL_CLEANUP = 1 << 8/* process main relation */
> } VacuumOption;
>
> Do we actually
On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 09:53:44AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:52 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:32 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 09:26:20AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 12:11 AM Justin Pryzby
>
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 9:44 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> I think it might be possible to distinguish between different types of
> corruption and to separate, at least to some degree, the checking
> associated with each type. I think one can imagine something that
> checks the structure of a btree witho
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 10:04 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 09:53:44AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:52 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:32 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 09:26:20AM +0900, Amit Langote wro
I'm testing with a customer's data on pg13dev and got output for which Peak
Memory doesn't look right/useful. I reproduced it on 565f16902.
CREATE TABLE p(i int) PARTITION BY RANGE(i);
CREATE TABLE p1 PARTITION OF p FOR VALUES FROM (0)TO(1000);
CREATE TABLE p2 PARTITION OF p FOR VALUES FROM (1000
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 13:21, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> I'm testing with a customer's data on pg13dev and got output for which Peak
> Memory doesn't look right/useful. I reproduced it on 565f16902.
Likely the sanity of those results depends on whether you think that
the Memory Usage reported outsi
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 9:44 PM David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 13:21, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >
> > I'm testing with a customer's data on pg13dev and got output for which Peak
> > Memory doesn't look right/useful. I reproduced it on 565f16902.
>
> Likely the sanity of those results
On 2020-Mar-25, Andres Freund wrote:
> What I was thinking of was a new flag, with a distinct value from
> PROC_IN_VACUUM. It'd currently just be specified in the
> GetCurrentVirtualXIDs() calls in WaitForOlderSnapshots(). That'd avoid
> needing to wait for other CICs on different relations. Since
On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 01:44:17PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 13:21, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >
> > I'm testing with a customer's data on pg13dev and got output for which Peak
> > Memory doesn't look right/useful. I reproduced it on 565f16902.
>
> Likely the sanity of those
On 2020-Aug-04, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> diff --git a/src/include/storage/proc.h b/src/include/storage/proc.h
> index b20e2ad4f6..43c8ea3e31 100644
> --- a/src/include/storage/proc.h
> +++ b/src/include/storage/proc.h
> @@ -53,6 +53,8 @@ struct XidCache
> #define PROC_IS_AUTOVACUUM
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 14:13, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Also odd (to me). If I encourage more workers, there are "slots" for each
> "planned" worker, even though fewer were launched:
Looking at explain.c for "num_workers; " (including the final space at
the end), looking at each for loop that loops
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 8:24 AM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> So, in my point of view LSM as an index AM is far not a full power LSM
> for PostgreSQL, but it's still useful. Large insert-only tables can
> benefit from LSM. Large tables with many indexes could also benefit,
> because non-HOT updates
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 14:27, David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 14:13, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Also odd (to me). If I encourage more workers, there are "slots" for each
> > "planned" worker, even though fewer were launched:
>
> Looking at explain.c for "num_workers; " (including the
Hello.
At Tue, 4 Aug 2020 12:01:45 -0700, Ashwin Agrawal wrote
in
> If shutdown (non hot enabled) standby and promote the standby using
> promote_trigger_file via pg_ctl start with -w (wait), currently pg_ctl
> returns as soon as recovery is started. Instead would be helpful if
> pg_ctl can wai
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 6:02 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> ... speedup of around 6% ...
I did some better testing. OS: Linux, storage: consumer SSD. I
repeatedly ran crash recovery on 3.3GB worth of WAL generated with 8M
pgbench transactions. I tested 3 different builds 7 times each and
used "minist
Hi,
I see that release 13 is currently in beta.
When will be the official production release of 13 be out?
We need to see if we can include this as part of our product release cycle.
Regards,
Joel
On 05.08.2020 02:59, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
The things you're writing makes me uneasy. I initially understood
lsm3 as a quick and dirty prototype, while you're probably keeping
some design in your mind (for instance, original design of LSM).
However, your message makes me think you're try
78 matches
Mail list logo
