On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Mithun Cy wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> something committable will come from it, but with 2 days left it's not
>> going to happen this CF.
> Adding a new patch. This one uses generate series instead of INSERT INTO
> SELECT and fix
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> something committable will come from it, but with 2 days left it's not
> going to happen this CF.
Adding a new patch. This one uses generate series instead of INSERT INTO
SELECT and fixed comments from Alvaro.
--
Thanks and Regards
Mithun C Y
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Why not use generate_series() queries to insert the appropriate number
> of tuples, instead of a handful of INSERT lines each time? Since each
> insert is a separate transaction, that would probably be faster.
>
> Why do you have a plpgsql
Why not use generate_series() queries to insert the appropriate number
of tuples, instead of a handful of INSERT lines each time? Since each
insert is a separate transaction, that would probably be faster.
Why do you have a plpgsql function just to create a cursor? Wouldn't it
be simpler to cre
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I think you have a point, but not sure if it is worth to add a
> separate file. It might be tricky to choose which file to add new
> tests for hash_indexes. Anybody else have opinion on this point?
I think all the tests should be added to has
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Mithun Cy wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> I wonder why you have included a new file for these tests, why can't be
>> these added to existing hash_index.sql.
> tests in hash_index.sql did not cover overflow pages, above tests were for
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I wonder why you have included a new file for these tests, why can't be
these added to existing hash_index.sql.
tests in hash_index.sql did not cover overflow pages, above tests were for
mainly for them. So I thought having a separate test file
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Ashutosh Sharma
> wrote:
>>> Well, that change should be part of Amit's patch to add WAL logging,
>>> not this patch, whose mission is just to improve test coverage.
>>
>> I have just removed the warning mess
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Well, that change should be part of Amit's patch to add WAL logging,
>> not this patch, whose mission is just to improve test coverage.
>
> I have just removed the warning message from expected output file as i
> have performed th
Hi,
> Well, that change should be part of Amit's patch to add WAL logging,
> not this patch, whose mission is just to improve test coverage.
I have just removed the warning message from expected output file as i
have performed the testing on Amit's latest patch that removes this
warning message f
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 2:17 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> I have also removed the warning message that we used to get for hash index
> like 'WARNING: hash indexes are not WAL-logged and their use is discouraged'
> as this message is now no more visible w.r.t hash index after the WAL patch
> for
Hi,
I missed to attach the patch in my previous mail. Here i attach the patch.
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Ashutosh Sharma
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have reverified the code coverage for hash index code using the test
>
Hi All,
I have reverified the code coverage for hash index code using the test file
(commit-hash_coverage_test) attached with this mailing list and have found
that some of the code in _hash_squeezebucket() function flow is not being
covered. For this i have added a small testcase on top of 'commi
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Mithun Cy
wrote:
> I am attaching the patch to improve some coverage of hash index code [1].
> I have added some basic tests, which mainly covers overflow pages. It took
> 2 sec extra time in my machine in parallel schedule.
>
>
>
>
> Hit Total Coverage
> old tests
I am attaching the patch to improve some coverage of hash index code [1].
I have added some basic tests, which mainly covers overflow pages. It took
2 sec extra time in my machine in parallel schedule.
Hit Total Coverage
old tests Line Coverage 780 1478 52.7
Function Coverage 63 85 74.1
improv
15 matches
Mail list logo