Re: [HACKERS] Not-so-open items
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I changed the locking thing I was worried about. Unless Greg wants to do some real-world performance measurements to confirm or refute that change, I think this can be closed. I could do some if you're curious but my feeling is that the conservative choice is the right choice here regardless of what those numbers would show. So yeah, it should be closed. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] Not-so-open items
Tom Lane wrote: There are several entries on the 8.2 open-items list that I think can be removed: Fix backward array comparison - subset Done (this was redundant with the containment-operator item) OK, that wasn't clear to me. Store only active XIDs in subtransaction cache Per my note just now, this probably should wait for 8.3. OK, added to TODO. Double vacuum speed on tables with no indexes I changed the locking thing I was worried about. Unless Greg wants to do some real-world performance measurements to confirm or refute that change, I think this can be closed. OK, removed. Fix excessive page checking for new btree split code Per my note yesterday, I can't reproduce the misbehavior I saw six weeks ago, so I recommend we leave the code alone. OK, removed. Suppress error on bind parameters of unknown types I haven't heard one single person speak up to say yeah, that's a good idea, so I conclude it probably isn't. Recommend we not change it. OK, removed. BTW, pushing out an 8.1.5 is probably a good idea, but what's it doing in the 8.2 open-items list? Especially in the documentation section? It is something that has to happen before final release, but is not a _code_ item, so I threw it there. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] Not-so-open items
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: Store only active XIDs in subtransaction cache Per my note just now, this probably should wait for 8.3. OK, added to TODO. Actually, I realized this morning that there isn't anything there that the current code doesn't do already. A subxact will never be assigned an XID in the first place unless it stores tuples into the database. (This means the do-I-need-to-do-something tests in RecordSubTransactionCommit and RecordSubTransactionAbort are pretty much redundant...) So you might as well drop it from TODO --- perhaps there are variant ideas we could use, but I don't know what they are. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] Not-so-open items
OK, removed. --- Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: Store only active XIDs in subtransaction cache Per my note just now, this probably should wait for 8.3. OK, added to TODO. Actually, I realized this morning that there isn't anything there that the current code doesn't do already. A subxact will never be assigned an XID in the first place unless it stores tuples into the database. (This means the do-I-need-to-do-something tests in RecordSubTransactionCommit and RecordSubTransactionAbort are pretty much redundant...) So you might as well drop it from TODO --- perhaps there are variant ideas we could use, but I don't know what they are. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
[HACKERS] Not-so-open items
There are several entries on the 8.2 open-items list that I think can be removed: Fix backward array comparison - subset Done (this was redundant with the containment-operator item) Store only active XIDs in subtransaction cache Per my note just now, this probably should wait for 8.3. Double vacuum speed on tables with no indexes I changed the locking thing I was worried about. Unless Greg wants to do some real-world performance measurements to confirm or refute that change, I think this can be closed. Fix excessive page checking for new btree split code Per my note yesterday, I can't reproduce the misbehavior I saw six weeks ago, so I recommend we leave the code alone. Suppress error on bind parameters of unknown types I haven't heard one single person speak up to say yeah, that's a good idea, so I conclude it probably isn't. Recommend we not change it. BTW, pushing out an 8.1.5 is probably a good idea, but what's it doing in the 8.2 open-items list? Especially in the documentation section? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
