On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks. I am thinking that it might make sense to try to get the >> "microvacuum support for hash index" and "cache hash index meta page" >> patches committed before this one, because I'm guessing they are much >> simpler than this one, and I think therefore that the review of those >> patches can probably move fairly quickly. > > I think it makes sense to move "cache hash index meta page" first, > however "microvacuum support for hash index" is based on WAL patch as > the action in this patch (delete op) also needs to be logged. One > idea could be that we can try to split the patch so that WAL logging > can be done as a separate patch, but I am not sure if it is worth.
The thing is, there's a fair amount locking stupidity in what just got committed because of the requirement that the TID doesn't decrease within a page. I'd really like to get that fixed. >> Of course, ideally I can >> also start reviewing this one in the meantime. Does that make sense >> to you? >> > > You can start reviewing some of the operations like "Create Index", > "Insert". However, some changes are required because of change in > locking strategy for Vacuum. I am planning to work on rebasing it and > making required changes in next week. I'll review after that, since I have other things to review meanwhile. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers