On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Etsuro Fujita
>> wrote:
>>
>> > + {
>> > + {"pending_list_cleanup_size", PGC_USERSET,
>> > CLIENT_CONN_STATEMENT,
>> > +
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Etsuro Fujita
> wrote:
>
> > + {
> > + {"pending_list_cleanup_size", PGC_USERSET,
> > CLIENT_CONN_STATEMENT,
> > + gettext_noop("Sets the maximum size of the
> pending
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Fujii Masao writes:
>>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Not to kibitz too much after-the-fact, but wouldn't it be better to
give this a name that has "GIN" i
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fujii Masao writes:
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Not to kibitz too much after-the-fact, but wouldn't it be better to
>>> give this a name that has "GIN" in it somewhere?
>
>> Maybe. gin_pending_list_cleanup_size?
Fujii Masao writes:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Not to kibitz too much after-the-fact, but wouldn't it be better to
>> give this a name that has "GIN" in it somewhere?
> Maybe. gin_pending_list_cleanup_size? gin_pending_list_limit? Better name?
gin_pending_list_lim
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> OK, so if there are no objections of others, I'll mark this as "Ready for
>>> Committer".
>>
>> I just pushed this. Thanks!
>
> Not to kibitz too much after-the-fact, but wouldn't it be
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> OK, so if there are no objections of others, I'll mark this as "Ready for
>> Committer".
>
> I just pushed this. Thanks!
Not to kibitz too much after-the-fact, but wouldn't it be better to
give this a name that has "GIN" in it somewhere?
--
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> (2014/11/11 2:31), Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita
>>>
>>> The patch looks good to me except for the following point:
>
>
>>> *** a/src/backend/access/gin/ginfast.c
>>> --- b/src/backend/access/gin/ginf
(2014/11/11 2:31), Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita
The patch looks good to me except for the following point:
*** a/src/backend/access/gin/ginfast.c
--- b/src/backend/access/gin/ginfast.c
***
*** 25,30
--- 25,32
#include "utils/memuti
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> (2014/11/06 23:38), Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Etsuro Fujita
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> IIUC, I think that min = 0 disables fast update, so ISTM that it'd be
>>> appropriate to set min to some positive value. And ISTM
(2014/11/06 23:38), Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
IIUC, I think that min = 0 disables fast update, so ISTM that it'd be
appropriate to set min to some positive value. And ISTM that the idea of
using the min value of work_mem is not so bad.
OK. I cha
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> IIUC, I think that min = 0 disables fast update, so ISTM that it'd be
> appropriate to set min to some positive value. And ISTM that the idea of
> using the min value of work_mem is not so bad.
OK. I changed the min value to 64kB.
> *** 35
(2014/10/30 21:30), Fujii Masao wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
Here are my review comments.
* The patch applies cleanly and make and make check run successfully. I
think that the patch is mostly good.
Thanks! Attached is the updated version of the patch.
Th
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> (2014/10/09 11:49), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>
>> (2014/10/08 22:51), Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Etsuro Fujita
>>> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>>
>>
(2014/10/09 11:49), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2014/10/08 22:51), Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_S
(2014/10/08 22:51), Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE and work_mem, for this setting.
Woul
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> (2014/09/13 2:42), Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
>>>
>>>
> PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE
(2014/09/13 2:42), Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE and work_mem, for this setting.
Wouldn't it be easy-to-use to have only one parameter,
PENDING_L
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita
>> wrote:
>
>> > PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE and work_mem, for this setting.
>> > Wouldn't it be easy-to-use to have only one parameter,
>> > PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE? H
Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita
> wrote:
> > PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE and work_mem, for this setting.
> > Wouldn't it be easy-to-use to have only one parameter,
> > PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE? How about setting PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE to
> > work_mem as the
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> (2014/09/10 12:31), Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> (2014/09/09 22:17), Fujii Masao wrote:
Attached is the updated version of the patch.
>
>
>>> I took a quick review on th
(2014/09/10 12:31), Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
(2014/09/09 22:17), Fujii Masao wrote:
Attached is the updated version of the patch.
I took a quick review on the patch. It looks good to me,
but one thing I'm
concerned about is
You wrote:
T
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> (2014/09/09 22:17), Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>>
>>> I get some compiler warnings on v2 of this patch:
>>>
>>> reloptions.c:219: warning: excess elements in struct initializer
>>> reloptions
(2014/09/09 22:17), Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
I get some compiler warnings on v2 of this patch:
reloptions.c:219: warning: excess elements in struct initializer
reloptions.c:219: warning: (near initialization for 'intRelOpts[15]')
Attached is the u
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing the patch! ISTM that I failed to make the patch from
>> my git repository... Attached is the rebased version.
>
>
>
> I get some compiler warnings on v2 of this pa
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> Thanks for reviewing the patch! ISTM that I failed to make the patch from
> my git repository... Attached is the rebased version.
>
I get some compiler warnings on v2 of this patch:
reloptions.c:219: warning: excess elements in struct ini
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Fujii Masao writes:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Robert Haas
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Fujii Masao writes:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Should we try to install some hack around fastupd
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> The attached patch introduces...
A patch perhaps? :)
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Fujii Masao writes:
>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Should we try to install some hack around fastupdate for 9.4? I fear
the divergence between reasonable
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fujii Masao writes:
>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Should we try to install some hack around fastupdate for 9.4? I fear
>>> the divergence between reasonable values of work_mem and reasonable
>>> sizes for that list
31 matches
Mail list logo
