On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 21:53 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
It would also be very useful to have a version of pgstattuple that
worked with heaps, so test cases can be written that examine the header
fields, info flags etc. It would be useful to be able to specify the
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The first function reads a single block from a file, returning the
complete page as a bytea of length BLCKSZ.
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION bufpage_get_raw_page(text, int4)
RETURNS bytea ...
Directly from the file? What if the version in buffers is
On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 11:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The first function reads a single block from a file, returning the
complete page as a bytea of length BLCKSZ.
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION bufpage_get_raw_page(text, int4)
RETURNS bytea ...
Simon Riggs wrote:
The main point is to get a set of functions that can be used directly in
additional regression tests as well as diagnostics. ISTM we need to
*prove* HOT works, not just claim it. I'm very open to different
approaches as to how we might do this.
Functions to support
On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 12:29 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
The main point is to get a set of functions that can be used directly in
additional regression tests as well as diagnostics. ISTM we need to
*prove* HOT works, not just claim it. I'm very open to different
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The earlier objections to AdminPack were about functions that write to
files. These functions just read data, not write them. So there's no
objection there, AFAICS.
Au contraire, both reading and writing are issues. But I had
misunderstood your original
Hi All,
The version 4.0 of HOT patch is very close to the state where
we can start considering it for testing for correctness as well
as benchmarking, if there is sufficient interest to give it a
chance for 8.3
I have very little clue about what community thinks about
HOT and the patch, but I
Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Another problem with the current HOT patch is that it generates
tuple level fragmentation while reusing LP_DELETEd items when
the new tuple is of smaller size than the original one. Heikki
supported using best-fit strategy to reduce the
On 3/2/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Another problem with the current HOT patch is that it generates
tuple level fragmentation while reusing LP_DELETEd items when
the new tuple is of smaller size than the original one. Heikki
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 10:08 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
How much testing of this patch's concurrent behavior has been done?
I'm wondering if any other locking thinkos are in there ...
This version of HOT is being developed from scratch, with as much
feedback from the community as possible. The idea
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 10:08 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
How much testing of this patch's concurrent behavior has been done?
I'm wondering if any other locking thinkos are in there ...
This version of HOT is being developed from scratch, with as much
feedback from the
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 10:08 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
How much testing of this patch's concurrent behavior has been done?
I'm wondering if any other locking thinkos are in there ...
This version of HOT is being developed from scratch, with as much
12 matches
Mail list logo
