On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> OK, I will save this for 7.4. Sorry, Gavin. I missed this one for 7.3.
Such is life.
Gavin
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
OK, I will save this for 7.4. Sorry, Gavin. I missed this one for 7.3.
---
pgman wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Bruce wrote:
> > > "Yes, someone from India has a project to tes
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, we never heard back from that guy. It is still a live topic though.
> One of the Red Hat people was looking at it over the summer, and I think
> Neil Conway is experimenting with LRU-2 code right now.
Just to confirm that, I'm working on this, and hope
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What do we do now? The author clearly got it in before beta, but we are
> in beta now. I think we should apply it.
No. It's a feature addition and we are in feature freeze. Moreover,
it's an unreviewed feature addition (I certainly never had time t
Tom Lane wrote:
> Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Bruce wrote:
>>"Yes, someone from India has a project to test LRU-K and MRU for
>>large table scans and report back the results. He will
>>implement whichever is best."
>>Did this make it into 7.3?
>
> No, we never heard back from
Tom Lane wrote:
> Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Bruce wrote:
> > "Yes, someone from India has a project to test LRU-K and MRU for
> > large table scans and report back the results. He will
> > implement whichever is best."
> > Did this make it into 7.3?
>
> No, we never heard ba
Tom Lane wrote:
> Another thing I'd like to see in the near future is a configurable
> setting for the amount of memory space that can be used for temp-table
> buffers. The current setting is ridiculously small (64*8K IIRC), but
> there's not much point in increasing it until we also have a smart
Mike Mascari wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I'm just curious as to the 7.3 status of a couple of things:
>
> 1. Back in Feb. I wrote (in regards to Oracle behavior):
>
> "Unlike normal queries where blocks are added to the MRU end of
> an LRU list, full table scans add the blocks to the LRU end of
> the
Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce wrote:
> "Yes, someone from India has a project to test LRU-K and MRU for
> large table scans and report back the results. He will
> implement whichever is best."
> Did this make it into 7.3?
No, we never heard back from that guy. It is still a
