On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Heikki Linnakangas < hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/2013 11:41 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> On 11/28/2013 09:19 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Heikki Linnakangas >>> <hlinnakan...@vmware.com >>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>> On 11/26/13 15:34, Alexander Korotkov wrote: >>>> >>>> What's your plans about GIN now? I tried to rebase packed posting lists >>>>> with head. But I found that you've changed interface of placeToPage >>>>> function. That's conflicts with packed posting lists, because >>>>> dataPlaceToPageLeaf needs not only offset number to describe place to >>>>> insert item pointer. Do you like to commit rework of handling GIN >>>>> incomplete splits before? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yeah, I'm planning to get back to this patch after committing the >>>> incomplete splits patch. I think the refactoring of the WAL-logging >>>> that I >>>> did in that patch will simplify this patch, too. I'll take a look at >>>> Michael's latest comments on the incomplete splits patch tomorrow, so I >>>> should get back to this on Thursday or Friday. >>>> >>> >>> Should I try to rebase this patch now or you plan to do it yourself? Some >>> changes like "void *insertdata" argument make me think you have some >>> particular plan to rebase this patch, but I didn't get it exactly. >>> >> >> Here's rebased version. I'll continue reviewing it now.. >> > > Another update. Fixes a bunch of bugs. Mostly introduced by me, but a > couple were present in your v16: > > * When allocating the entry->list buffer in a scan, it must be large > enough for the max number of items that can fit on a compressed page, > whether the current page is compressed or not. That's because the same > buffer is reused on subsequent pages, which might be compressed. > > * When splitting a leaf page during index creation, missed the trick > that's present in current master, to choose the split point so that left > page is packed as full as possible. I put that back, it makes newly-built > indexes somewhat smaller. (I wonder if we should leave some free space for > future updates. But that's a separate patch, let's keep the current > behavior in this patch) > > I'll continue reviewing next week.. Good. Thanks for debug and fixing bugs. Can I do anything for this patch now? ------ With best regards, Alexander Korotkov.