On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> This patch fails the regression tests; see attachment. > > Thanks for reporting the diffs. The reason for failures is that > still decoding for tuple is not done as mentioned in Notes section in > mail > > (http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/caa4ek1jeuby16uwrda2tabkk+rlrl3giyyqy1mvh_6cthmd...@mail.gmail.com) > > However, to keep the sanity of patch, I will do that and post an > updated patch, but I think the main idea behind new approach at this > point is to get feedback on if such an optimization is acceptable > for worst case scenarios and if not whether we can get this done > with table level or GUC option.
I don't understand why lack of decoding support should cause regression tests to fail. I thought decoding was only being done during WAL replay, a case not exercised by the regression tests. A few other comments: +#define PGRB_HKEY_PRIME 11 /* prime number used for rolling hash */ +#define PGRB_HKEY_SQUARE_PRIME 11 * 11 /* prime number used for rolling hash */ +#define PGRB_HKEY_CUBE_PRIME 11 * 11 * 11 /* prime number used for rolling hash */ 11 * 11 can't accurately be described as a prime number. Nor can 11 * 11 * 11. Please adjust the comment. Also, why 11? It doesn't appear that pglz_hist_idx is changed except for whitespace; please revert that hunk. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
