Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Subtransaction commits and Hot Standby

2008-09-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 15:59 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 10:11 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > I wonder if the improved clog API required to mark multiple > > transactions as committed at once would be also useful to > > TransactionIdCommitTree which is used in regular tra

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Infrastructure changes for recovery

2008-09-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 23:06 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 10:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 09:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> Do we really need a checkpoint there at all? > > > > > "Timelines only change at s

Re: [PATCHES] hash index improving v3

2008-09-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 09:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Thinks: Why not just sort all of the time and skip the debate entirely? > > The sort is demonstrably a loser for smaller indexes. Admittedly, > if the index is small then the sort can't cost all that

Re: [PATCHES] hash index improving v3

2008-09-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 09:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > The other side of that coin is that it's not clear this is really worth > arguing about, much less exposing a separate parameter for. Agreed. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent

Re: [PATCHES] hash index improving v3

2008-09-23 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thinks: Why not just sort all of the time and skip the debate entirely? The sort is demonstrably a loser for smaller indexes. Admittedly, if the index is small then the sort can't cost all that much, but if the (correct) threshold is some large fraction o

Re: [PATCHES] hash index improving v3

2008-09-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 08:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > maintenance_work_mem is already used for 3 separate operations that bear > > little resemblance to each other. If it's appropriate for all of those > > then its appropriate for this usage also. > > No

Re: [PATCHES] hash index improving v3

2008-09-23 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > maintenance_work_mem is already used for 3 separate operations that bear > little resemblance to each other. If it's appropriate for all of those > then its appropriate for this usage also. No, it isn't. The fundamental point here is that this isn't a mem