On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coe...@gmail.com> > wrote: >>> Committed with those changes. >> >> Thanks for above corrections and commit. But, There are couple of >> things that we might have to change once the patch for 'WAL in Hash >> Indexes' gets checked-in. >> >> 1) The test-case result needs to be changed because there won't be any >> WARNING message : "WARNING: hash indexes are not WAL-logged and their >> use is discouraged". >> >> 2) From WAL patch for Hash Indexes onwards, we won't have any zero >> pages in Hash Indexes so I don't think we need to have column showing >> zero pages (zero_pages). When working on WAL in hash indexes, we found >> that WAL routine 'XLogReadBufferExtended' does not expect a page to be >> completely zero page else it returns Invalid Buffer. To fix this, we >> started initializing freed overflow page and newly allocated bucket >> pages using _hash_pageinit() hence I don't think there will be any >> zero pages from here onwards. > > Maybe we should call them "unused pages". >
+1. If we consider some more names for that column then probably one alternative could be "empty pages". -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
