Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch

From: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Date: 2010-10-01 01:07:07
Message-ID: AANLkTi=FowVPVEbPfMxfH_DSSz8aPSwMtoDJE5fTdr5m@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi, Leonardo-san,

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The wording should be something like "CLUSTER requires transient disk
> space equal to about twice the size of the table plus its indexes".

Could you merge those discussions into the final patch?
Also, please check whether my modification broke your patch.
Thank you.

-- 
Itagaki Takahiro

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2010-10-01 01:32:38
Subject: Re: Postgres vs. intel ccNUMA on Linux
Previous:From: Greg SmithDate: 2010-10-01 01:02:51
Subject: Re: O_DSYNC broken on MacOS X?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group