On Jan 11, 2006, at 9:28 PM, Neil Conway wrote:
Ah, right. Attached is a corrected patch.
I can confirm that this patch does indeed fix the issue for me on 8.1.2.
Thanks!
David
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free
"Qingqing Zhou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe the take a copied list is safer. I got a little afraid of doing
> seqscan hash while doing HASH_ENTER at the same time. Do we have this kind
> of hash usage somewhere?
Sure, it's perfectly safe. It's unspecified whether the scan will visit
suc
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> Yes, the patch is wrong as-is because it may lose uncompleted fsyncs.
> But I think that we could just add the AbsorbFsyncRequests call in the
> fsync loop and not worry about trying to avoid doing extra fsyncs.
>
> Another possibility is to make the copied
"Qingqing Zhou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> AbsorbFsyncRequests will be called during the fsync loop in my patch,
>> so new files might be added to pendingOpsTable and they will be removed
>> from the table *before* writing the pages belonging to th
ITAGAKI Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Attached is a patch that removes undesired paddings from b-tree indexes.
This seems extremely invasive for a relatively small gain :-(
The example you cite of an int4 index on a MAXALIGN-8 machine is
by far the best case, and in many cases there would
