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.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: