| From: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Grzegorz Jaskiewicz" <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Bitmapscan changes |
| Date: | 2007-03-22 06:25:15 |
| Message-ID: | 2e78013d0703212325j3fe64b8bi482e22c5715eb99b@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On 3/22/07, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Grzegorz Jaskiewicz wrote:
> > any idea how this patch is going to play with hot ? or should I just
> > give it a spin, and see if my world collapses :D
>
> I've run tests with both patches applied. I haven't tried with the
> latest HOT-versions, but they should in theory work fine together.
> You'll get a conflict on the pg_stats-views, both patches add
> statistics, but IIRC you can just ignore that and it works. I think
> there's a conflict in regression tests as well.
>
> Give it a shot and let me know if there's problems :).
>
>
Heikki, the signature of heap_fetch is changed slightly (we pass
a boolean to guide HOT-chain following) with HOT. That might
cause a conflict, I haven't tested though.
Grzegorz, if you can try HOT as well, that will be great.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Grzegorz Jaskiewicz | 2007-03-22 07:11:11 | Re: relation 71478240 deleted while still in use on 8.1 |
| Previous Message | Jeremy Drake | 2007-03-22 05:47:44 | Re: patch adding new regexp functions |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Grzegorz Jaskiewicz | 2007-03-22 07:15:09 | Re: [PATCHES] Bitmapscan changes |
| Previous Message | Jeremy Drake | 2007-03-22 05:47:44 | Re: patch adding new regexp functions |