On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Unless we want to wait until that work is committed before doing more review >>> and testing on this. >> >> The concurrent hash index patch is getting changed and some of the >> changes needs change in this patch as well. So, I think after it gets >> somewhat stabilized, I will update this patch as well. > > Now that concurrent hash index patch is committed [1], I will work on > rebasing this patch. Note, I have moved this to next CF.
Thanks. I am thinking that it might make sense to try to get the "microvacuum support for hash index" and "cache hash index meta page" patches committed before this one, because I'm guessing they are much simpler than this one, and I think therefore that the review of those patches can probably move fairly quickly. Of course, ideally I can also start reviewing this one in the meantime. Does that make sense to you? -- 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
