On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 07:50 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I compare the performance of commit
431ab0e82819b31fcd1e33ecb52c2cd3b4b41da7 (post-patch) with commit
431ab0e82819b31fcd1e33ecb52c2cd3b4b41da7 (pre-patch).
I believe
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Cédric Villemain
cedric.villemain.deb...@gmail.com wrote:
out of curiosity, does it affect the previous benchmarks of the feature ?
I don't think there's much performance impact,
On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 07:50 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I compare the performance of commit
431ab0e82819b31fcd1e33ecb52c2cd3b4b41da7 (post-patch) with commit
431ab0e82819b31fcd1e33ecb52c2cd3b4b41da7 (pre-patch).
I believe that is a copy/paste error.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
--
Sent via
2011/6/27 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it seems I didn't put nearly enough thought into heap_update().
The fix for the immediate
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Cédric Villemain
cedric.villemain.deb...@gmail.com wrote:
out of curiosity, does it affect the previous benchmarks of the feature ?
I don't think there's much performance impact, because the only case
where we actually have to do any real work is when vacuum
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it seems I didn't put nearly enough thought into heap_update().
The fix for the immediate problem looks simple enough - all the code
has
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it seems I didn't put nearly enough thought into heap_update().
The fix for the immediate problem looks simple enough - all the code
has been refactored to use the new API, so the calls can be easily be
moved into
On 22.06.2011 06:05, Robert Haas wrote:
Second, when inserting, updating, or deleting
a tuple, we can no longer get away with clearing the visibility map
bit after releasing the lock on the corresponding heap page, because
an intervening crash might leave the visibility map bit set and the
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 22.06.2011 06:05, Robert Haas wrote:
Second, when inserting, updating, or deleting
a tuple, we can no longer get away
