On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 19:36 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Here's an updated version of the relation forks patch, and an
incremental FSM rewrite patch on top of that. The relation forks patch
is ready for review. The FSM implementation is more work-in-progress
still, but I'd like to get
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 19:36 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Here's an updated version of the relation forks patch, and an
incremental FSM rewrite patch on top of that. The relation forks patch
is ready for review. The FSM implementation is more work-in-progress
still, but
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 12:27 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 19:36 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Here's an updated version of the relation forks patch, and an
incremental FSM rewrite patch on top of that. The relation forks patch
On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 15:20 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
2. We only update the FSM when we try to insert a tuple and find that it
doesn't fit. That reduces the amount of FSM updates dramatically when
you're doing bulk inserts. (This is the same as in the current
implementation, though
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I wonder if we could instead make vacuum write a new FSM tree from
scratch, rather than updating it piecemeal.
I'd like to move away from that, as we'll hopefully get some sort of
partial vacuum capability soon.
We might want to have some sort of bulk update operation,
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Here's an updated version of the relation forks patch, and an
incremental FSM rewrite patch on top of that. The relation forks patch
is ready for review. The FSM implementation is more work-in-progress
still, but I'd like to get some review on that as well, with the
