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.


> +       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

Attachment: concurrent_hash_index_v5.patch
Description: Binary data

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to