Bruce Momjian wrote:
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Whatever happened to this? It was in the first 9.0 commitfest but was
returned with feedback but never updated:
Though Alex did some useful tests and review, and in fact
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Whatever happened to this? It was in the first 9.0 commitfest but was
returned with feedback but never updated:
Though Alex did some useful
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Whatever happened to this? It was in the first 9.0 commitfest but was
returned with feedback but never updated:
Though Alex did some useful tests and review, and in fact confirmed that the
Whatever happened to this? It was in the first 9.0 commitfest but was
returned with feedback but never updated:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=75
---
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
ISTM that the
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Whatever happened to this? It was in the first 9.0 commitfest but was
returned with feedback but never updated:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=75
Well, the patch author chose not to pursue
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Whatever happened to this? ?It was in the first 9.0 commitfest but was
returned with feedback but never updated:
? ? ? ?https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=75
Well, the patch
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Whatever happened to this? ?It was in the first 9.0 commitfest but was
returned with feedback but never updated:
? ? ?
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Whatever happened to this? It was in the first 9.0 commitfest but was
returned with feedback but never updated:
Though Alex did some useful tests and review, and in fact confirmed that the
VACUUM time dropped from 16494
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Pavan Deolaseepavan.deola...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Pavan, are you planning to respond to Alex's comments and/or update this
patch?
Yes, I will. Hopefully by end of this week.
Since it has
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Pavan, are you planning to respond to Alex's comments and/or update this
patch?
Yes, I will. Hopefully by end of this week.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Alex Hunsakerbada...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 06:56, Pavan Deolaseepavan.deola...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is a patch which implements this. The PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag is set if all
tuples in the page are visible to all transactions and there are no
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 06:56, Pavan Deolaseepavan.deola...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is a patch which implements this. The PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag is set if all
tuples in the page are visible to all transactions and there are no DEAD
line pointers in the page. The second check is required so that
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Pavan Deolasee
pavan.deola...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
If you see a straightforward way, please submit a patch!
Will do that.
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Pavan Deolasee pavan.deola...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
If you see a straightforward way, please submit a patch!
Will do that.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Is this something for 8.4 CVS?
I worked out the patch as per Heikki's suggestion. So I think he needs
to review and decide it's fate.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Is this something for 8.4 CVS?
I worked out the patch as per Heikki's suggestion. So I think he needs
to review and decide it's fate.
Yeah, I dropped the ball on that one. It's been knocking in the
Yeah, I dropped the ball on that one. It's been knocking in the back of my
head since, but I've never gotten around. I'm feeling reluctant to review it
since it's not really a high priority thing, and I'm not sure whether we
want it or not.
In that case perhaps we should add it to
Is this something for 8.4 CVS?
---
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Pavan Deolasee
pavan.deola...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you see a straightforward way, please submit a patch!
Will do that.
Here is a patch which implements this. The PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you see a straightforward way, please submit a patch!
Will do that.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
ISTM that the PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag and the visibility map bit can be set at
the end of pruning operation if we know that there are only tuples visible
to all transactions left in the page.
Right.
The way pruning is done, I think it
would be straight forward to get this
ISTM that the PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag and the visibility map bit can be set at
the end of pruning operation if we know that there are only tuples visible
to all transactions left in the page. The way pruning is done, I think it
would be straight forward to get this information.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
22 matches
Mail list logo
