On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Jesper Pedersen <jesper.peder...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 08/05/2016 07:36 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Needs a rebase. > Done. > > + if (blkno == P_NEW) > + elog(ERROR, "hash AM does not use P_NEW"); > > Left over ? > No. We need this check similar to all other _hash_*buf API's, as we never expect caller of those API's to pass P_NEW. The new buckets (blocks) are created during split and it uses different mechanism to allocate blocks in bulk. I have fixed all other issues you have raised. Updated patch is attached with this mail. > > Ran some tests on a CHAR() based column which showed good results. Will have > to compare with a run with the WAL patch applied. > Okay, Thanks for testing. I think WAL patch is still not ready for performance testing, I am fixing few issues in that patch, but you can do the design or code level review of that patch at this stage. I think it is fine even if you share the performance numbers with this and or Mithun's patch [1]. [1] - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/715/ -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
concurrent_hash_index_v5.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
