I found IndexScanDesc-ignore_killed_tuples is always true.
Is this still needed?
Also, I cannot understand why gistgetmulti calls gistnext with
ignore_killed_tuples = false. We can always ignore LP_DELETEed tuples, right?
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Cyber Space Laboratories
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 19:12 +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
This is a revised patch for index fillfactor control:
- Split MAX_PCTFREE into three for each index method.
- B-tree indexes use their own settings when rightmost page is split.
- Fix a bug that GUC is modified when index
ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I found IndexScanDesc-ignore_killed_tuples is always true.
Is this still needed?
What is the point of removing it? You cannot argue that saving
one if-test per tuple is a worthwhile speedup.
regards, tom lane
OK, I have applied your patch to psql and Teodor has adjusted the
tsearch2 expected results. I can't seem to run pgcrypto without getting
PRNG errors, so I expect my SSL is too old. Would you send me your
pgcrypto/regression.diff? Thanks.
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
OK, I have applied your patch to psql and Teodor has adjusted the
tsearch2 expected results. I can't seem to run pgcrypto without getting
PRNG errors, so I expect my SSL is too old. Would you send me your
pgcrypto/regression.diff? Thanks.
I
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:02:41AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
OK, I have applied your patch to psql and Teodor has adjusted the
tsearch2 expected results. I can't seem to run pgcrypto without getting
PRNG errors, so I expect my SSL is too old.
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:02:41AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
OK, I have applied your patch to psql and Teodor has adjusted the
tsearch2 expected results. I can't seem to run pgcrypto
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
I'll try to address these warnings (unless someone beats me to it).
I am looking at it now but I can't find the compiler flag to get those
warnings. I am gcc 2.95.3.
You'd need a newer compiler.
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
I'll try to address these warnings (unless someone beats me to it).
I am looking at it now but I can't find the compiler flag to get those
warnings. I am gcc 2.95.3.
You'd need a newer
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:09:13PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
I'll try to address these warnings (unless someone beats me to it).
I am looking at it now but I can't find the compiler flag to
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 06:16:07PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
Thanks for the tip. I'm currently merging CVS with my version and
getting a lot of conflicts (whitespace variations).
It's fairly simple changes AFAICS. Just need to fix the declarations of
a few variables.
Does
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes:
Does PostgreSQL have a policy on the signedness of strings?
For the most part we say char where we can and unsigned char only
where it really matters, which is mostly inside code that's
encoding-aware anyway.
It was only fairly recently that we
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:13:26PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
For the most part we say char where we can and unsigned char only
where it really matters, which is mostly inside code that's
encoding-aware anyway.
Well, I've done this and avoided changing any public interfaces. ie the
libpq interface
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Attached is a patch for initdb only (the other patch stands unchanged).
It will make initdb re-exec itself with a restricted token when
available (since we can only control the security of subprocesses)
Applied to HEAD.
There's a bit of shared code
When performing a parallel build (make -j N) with ./configure
--enable-depend it often tries to create the .deps directory twice and
bails out when it already exists due to a race condition of if doesn't
exist, then create. This patch prevents mkdir from returning an error.
Kris
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes:
Patch attached. Passes -pedantic on gcc 3.3.5
Applied with some cosmetic cleanups and further fixes for 64-bit
problems.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5:
Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
A larger problem is this:
test= SELECT '255.255.255.0'::inet - '1.1.1.1'::inet;
?column?
On 2/10/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I found IndexScanDesc-ignore_killed_tuples is always true.
Is this still needed?
What is the point of removing it? You cannot argue that saving
one if-test per tuple is a worthwhile speedup.
18 matches
Mail list logo
