On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 15:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > New patch attached, with that one-line change.
>>
>> Jeff, are you planning to review this further? Do you think it's OK to
>> c
On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 15:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > New patch attached, with that one-line change.
>
> Jeff, are you planning to review this further? Do you think it's OK to
> commit?
1. Patch does not apply to master cleanly, and it'
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> New patch attached, with that one-line change.
Jeff, are you planning to review this further? Do you think it's OK to commit?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hac
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> Yikes. I think you are right. It's kind of scary that the regression
>>> tests passed with that mistake.
>>
>> Can we add a test that exposes that mistake?
>
> Not
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Yikes. I think you are right. It's kind of scary that the regression
>> tests passed with that mistake.
>
> Can we add a test that exposes that mistake?
Not sure. We'd have to figure out how to reliably tickle it.
--
Robert Haas writes:
> Yikes. I think you are right. It's kind of scary that the regression
> tests passed with that mistake.
Can we add a test that exposes that mistake?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make ch
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 10:50 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 14:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > The attached patch refactors heap_hot_search_buffer() so that
>> > index_getnext() can use it, and modifies index_getnext() to do
On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 10:50 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 14:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > The attached patch refactors heap_hot_search_buffer() so that
> > index_getnext() can use it, and modifies index_getnext() to do so.
>
> Attached is a version of the patch that applies
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 14:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> The attached patch refactors heap_hot_search_buffer() so that
> index_getnext() can use it, and modifies index_getnext() to do so.
Attached is a version of the patch that applies cleanly to master.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
heap-hot-sear
The attached patch refactors heap_hot_search_buffer() so that
index_getnext() can use it, and modifies index_getnext() to do so.
The idea is based on one of Heikki's index-only scan patches, from 2009:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/msg00676.php
I believe, however, that thi
10 matches
Mail list logo
