On Sat, Apr 06, 2019 at 09:18:18PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Yeah, I'd hoped for some more opinions. I agree we've run out of time :-(
We are a couple of hours away from the freeze, so I have marked the
patch as returned with feedback. Let's see if we can still do
something for the other ite
On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 3:18 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 09:10:31AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > Well, that would be a bit sad. ISTM if we conclude that the current
> > behaviour is a bug we could commit the current patch and backpatch a
> > fix to honor a lower toast_
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 09:10:31AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Well, that would be a bit sad. ISTM if we conclude that the current
> behaviour is a bug we could commit the current patch and backpatch a
> fix to honor a lower toast_tuple_threshold. But yes, time is tight.
48 hours remain, which
On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 2:58 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 03:23:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > It seems to me that c251336 should have done all those things from the
> > start... In other terms, isn't that a bug and something that we
> > should fix and back-patch?
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 03:23:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> It seems to me that c251336 should have done all those things from the
> start... In other terms, isn't that a bug and something that we
> should fix and back-patch? I'll begin a new thread about that to
> catch more attention, w
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 11:40:57AM +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:19 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>> - The comments in tuptoaster.h need to be updated to outline the
>> difference between the compression invocation and the toast invocation
>> thresholds. The wording could b
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:19 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>
> I have been looking at this patch more, and here are some notes:
> - The tests can be really simplified using directly reltoastrelid, so
> I changed the queries this way. I am aware that the surroundings
> hardcode directly the relatio
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 02:35:19PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> + compress_tuple_threshold = RelationGetCompressTupleTarget(relation,
> + toast_tuple_threshold);
> + compress_tuple_threshold = Min(compress_tuple_threshold,
> + to
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 11:37:56AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Marked.
+ compress_tuple_threshold = RelationGetCompressTupleTarget(relation,
+ toast_tuple_threshold);
+ compress_tuple_threshold = Min(compress_tuple_threshold,
+
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 3:38 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 10:40 PM Pavan Deolasee
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 3:10 AM Shaun Thomas
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I can't really speak for the discussion related to `storage.sgml`, but
> >> I based my i
> Setting compress_tuple_target to a higher value won't be negative because the
> toast_tuple_target is used for compression anyways when compress_tuple_target
> is higher than toast_tuple_target.
Ack, you're right. Got my wires crossed. I must have gotten confused by my later
tests that enforced
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 10:40 PM Pavan Deolasee
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 3:10 AM Shaun Thomas
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I can't really speak for the discussion related to `storage.sgml`, but
>> I based my investigation on the existing patch to `create_table.sgml`.
>> About the only thi
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 3:10 AM Shaun Thomas
wrote:
>
> I can't really speak for the discussion related to `storage.sgml`, but
> I based my investigation on the existing patch to `create_table.sgml`.
> About the only thing I would suggest there is to possibly tweak the
> wording.
>
> * "The
Jumping in here, please be gentle. :)
Contents & Purpose
==
This appears to be a patch to add a new table storage option similar to
`toast_tuple_target` but geared toward compression. As a result, it's been
named `compress_tuple_target`, and allows modifying the threshold where
in
Hi Pavan,
On 3/12/19 4:38 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 3/11/19 2:23 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
I like this idea.
The patch seems to need update the part describing on-disk toast
storage in storage.sgml.
Yeah. Meanwhile, here's a rebased version of the patch to keep the cfbot
happy.
Looks
On 3/11/19 2:23 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 4:32 PM Pavan Deolasee
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Currently either the table level option `toast_tuple_target` or the compile
>> time default `TOAST_TUPLE_TARGET` is used to decide whether a new tuple
>> should be compressed or
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 4:32 PM Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Currently either the table level option `toast_tuple_target` or the compile
> time default `TOAST_TUPLE_TARGET` is used to decide whether a new tuple
> should be compressed or not. While this works reasonably well for most
> si
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:30 PM Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
> This is a nice idea, and I'm a bit surprised it hasn't got more
> attention. The patch itself seems very simple and straightforward,
> although it could probably do with having several sets of eyeballs on it.
I haven't needed this for anythin
On 2/6/19 2:32 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Currently either the table level option `toast_tuple_target` or the
> compile time default `TOAST_TUPLE_TARGET` is used to decide whether a
> new tuple should be compressed or not. While this works reasonably
> well for most situations, at tim
Hello,
Currently either the table level option `toast_tuple_target` or the compile
time default `TOAST_TUPLE_TARGET` is used to decide whether a new tuple
should be compressed or not. While this works reasonably well for most
situations, at times the user may not want to pay the overhead of toasti
20 matches
Mail list logo
