Just wanted to say thanks for the review, since I haven't yet managed to
fix and commit this. I expect to later this month.
On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 23:06 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Simple tuning of btree_xlog_vacuum() using an idea I had a wh
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Simple tuning of btree_xlog_vacuum() using an idea I had a while back,
> just never implemented. XXX comments removed.
>
> Allows us to avoid reading in blocks during VACUUM replay that are only
> required for correctness of index scans.
Revie
On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 16:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby writes:
> > On Apr 29, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> This is not the time to be hacking stuff like this. You haven't even
> >> demonstrated that there's a significant performance issue here.
>
> > I tend to agree that this p
Jim Nasby writes:
> On Apr 29, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is not the time to be hacking stuff like this. You haven't even
>> demonstrated that there's a significant performance issue here.
> I tend to agree that this point of the cycle isn't a good one to be making
> changes, but
On Apr 29, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> Objections to commit?
>
> This is not the time to be hacking stuff like this. You haven't even
> demonstrated that there's a significant performance issue here.
I tend to agree that this point of the cycle isn't a good one to
Simon Riggs writes:
> Objections to commit?
This is not the time to be hacking stuff like this. You haven't even
demonstrated that there's a significant performance issue here.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To m
Simple tuning of btree_xlog_vacuum() using an idea I had a while back,
just never implemented. XXX comments removed.
Allows us to avoid reading in blocks during VACUUM replay that are only
required for correctness of index scans.
Objections to commit?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.
