On Sun, 31 Aug 2008, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Greg Smith wrote:
This patch does need a bit of general care in a couple of areas. The
reviewing game plan I'm working through goes like this:
Did this review effort go anywhere?
Haven't made much progress--all my spare time for work like this la
Greg Smith wrote:
> This patch does need a bit of general care in a couple of areas. The
> reviewing game plan I'm working through goes like this:
Did this review effort go anywhere?
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Comm
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
At 2008-07-12 00:52:42 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The later versions of mine had a GUC named effective_spindle_count
which I think is nicely abstracted away from the implementation
details.
Yes, that does sound much better. (The patch I read
Abhijit Menon-Sen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 2008-07-12 00:52:42 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> There was some discussion about this change and in fact if you
>> look at CVS HEAD you'll find it already applied.
> Not as far as I can see.
The place where it matters is in ExecIndexAdvance
At 2008-07-12 00:52:42 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> There was some discussion about this change and in fact if you
> look at CVS HEAD you'll find it already applied.
Not as far as I can see.
> Incrementing the most significant index keys would maximize the
> distance we're jumpin around in
"Abhijit Menon-Sen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Zoltán.
>
> I was reading through your posix_fadvise patch,
Actually Zoltan's patch was based on an earlier patch from me. The sections
you're highlighting here are from my original patch.
> and I wanted to ask about this change in particular
Hi Zoltán.
I was reading through your posix_fadvise patch, and I wanted to ask
about this change in particular:
> --- a/src/backend/executor/nodeIndexscan.c
> +++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeIndexscan.c
> @@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ ExecIndexEvalArrayKeys(ExprContext *econtext,
> /* We want to kee
