On Sun, 31 Aug 2008, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Greg Smith wrote:
This patch does need a bit of general care in a couple of areas. The
reviewing game plan I'm working through goes like this:
Did this review effort go anywhere?
Haven't made much progress--all my spare time for work like this
Greg Smith wrote:
This patch does need a bit of general care in a couple of areas. The
reviewing game plan I'm working through goes like this:
Did this review effort go anywhere?
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company -
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
At 2008-07-12 00:52:42 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The later versions of mine had a GUC named effective_spindle_count
which I think is nicely abstracted away from the implementation
details.
Yes, that does sound much better. (The patch I
At 2008-07-12 00:52:42 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There was some discussion about this change and in fact if you
look at CVS HEAD you'll find it already applied.
Not as far as I can see.
Incrementing the most significant index keys would maximize the
distance we're jumpin around in the
Abhijit Menon-Sen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 2008-07-12 00:52:42 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There was some discussion about this change and in fact if you
look at CVS HEAD you'll find it already applied.
Not as far as I can see.
The place where it matters is in
Hi Zoltán.
I was reading through your posix_fadvise patch, and I wanted to ask
about this change in particular:
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeIndexscan.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeIndexscan.c
@@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ ExecIndexEvalArrayKeys(ExprContext *econtext,
/* We want to keep
Abhijit Menon-Sen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Zoltán.
I was reading through your posix_fadvise patch,
Actually Zoltan's patch was based on an earlier patch from me. The sections
you're highlighting here are from my original patch.
and I wanted to ask about this change in particular:
---
