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
19 matches
Mail list logo