| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Patch queue triage |
| Date: | 2007-05-17 17:27:09 |
| Message-ID: | 464C906D.7010509@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>>
>> I suppose inserting HOT tuples without index maintenance is useful
>> even if no
>> changes to the space allocation is made is useful. It won't get the
>> space
>> usage but it would save on index thrashing. But that still implies
>> all the
>> code to handle scans, updates, index builds, etc. Those chunks
>> could be
>> separated out but you can't commit without them.
>>
>> There are few things that we can separate easily, like CREATE INDEX
>> related changes, VACUUM and VACUUM FULL related changed, space
>> reuse related changes etc. Let me give it a shot.
>
> Did we ever get a broken up patch for this?
Yes:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-05/msg00065.php
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-17 17:33:08 | Re: UTF8MatchText |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2007-05-17 17:26:52 | Re: Patch queue triage |