Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] like/ilike improvements

2007-05-31 Thread ITAGAKI Takahiro
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, here is a patch that I think incorporates all the ideas discussed > (including part of Mark Mielke's suggestion about optimising %_). There > is now no special treatment of UTF8 other than its use of a faster > NextChar macro. This is a benchmar

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] like/ilike improvements

2007-05-31 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: do { (t)++; (tlen)--} while ((*(t) & 0xC0) == 0x80 && tlen > 0) The while *must* test those two conditions in the other order. (Don't laugh --- we've had reproducible bugs before in which the backend dumped core because of

[PATCHES] GUC temp_tablespaces (updated)

2007-05-31 Thread Jaime Casanova
Hi, This is an updated patch based on conversation on -hackers, basically it adds a hint to the error thrown by DROP TABLESPACE when it's not empty and there are temp files older than postmaster startup. i had to remove PgRemoveTempFiles() to test the patch (what i dificult task is to crash the

Re: [PATCHES] Synchronized Scan WIP patch

2007-05-31 Thread Jeff Davis
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 09:08 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Here's a work-in-progress update of this patch. > > I haven't done any major changes, but a lot of little refactoring and > commenting, including: > > * moved the sync scan stuff to a new file access/heapam/syncscan.c. > heapam.c is

Re: [PATCHES] Regression tests

2007-05-31 Thread Magnus Hagander
Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Joachim Wieland attempted to post this patch, but it appears to be gone. > > I trust the applied version will contain neither Windows newlines nor > non-English comments. Certainly would assume so. I haven't actually looked at the p

Re: [PATCHES] Synchronized Scan WIP patch

2007-05-31 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Here's a work-in-progress update of this patch. I haven't done any major changes, but a lot of little refactoring and commenting, including: * moved the sync scan stuff to a new file access/heapam/syncscan.c. heapam.c is long enough already, and in theory the same mechanism could be used for

Re: [PATCHES] Seq scans status update

2007-05-31 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I just ran a quick test with 4 concurrent scans on a dual-core system, and it looks like we do "leak" buffers from the rings because they're pinned at the time they would be recycled. Yeah, I noticed the same in some tests here.