On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 15:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
New patch attached, with that one-line change.
Jeff, are you planning to review this further?
On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 15:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
New patch attached, with that one-line change.
Jeff, are you planning to review this further? Do you think it's OK to
commit?
1. Patch does not apply to master
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
New patch attached, with that one-line change.
Jeff, are you planning to review this further? Do you think it's OK to commit?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 14:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
The attached patch refactors heap_hot_search_buffer() so that
index_getnext() can use it, and modifies index_getnext() to do so.
Attached is a version of the patch that applies cleanly to master.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 10:50 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 14:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
The attached patch refactors heap_hot_search_buffer() so that
index_getnext() can use it, and modifies index_getnext() to do so.
Attached is a version of the patch that applies
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 10:50 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 14:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
The attached patch refactors heap_hot_search_buffer() so that
index_getnext() can use it, and modifies
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Yikes. I think you are right. It's kind of scary that the regression
tests passed with that mistake.
Can we add a test that exposes that mistake?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Yikes. I think you are right. It's kind of scary that the regression
tests passed with that mistake.
Can we add a test that exposes that mistake?
Not sure. We'd have to figure out
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Yikes. I think you are right. It's kind of scary that the regression
tests passed with that mistake.
Can
The attached patch refactors heap_hot_search_buffer() so that
index_getnext() can use it, and modifies index_getnext() to do so.
The idea is based on one of Heikki's index-only scan patches, from 2009:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/msg00676.php
I believe, however, that
10 matches
Mail list logo
