Re: pglz performance

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Gasper Zejn <zejn(at)owca(dot)info>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pglz performance
Date: 2019-11-28 02:39:42
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 04:28:18PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Yes. I was considering using the test_pglz extension first, but in the
> end I decided an end-to-end test is easier to do and more relevant.

I actually got something in this area in one of my trees:

> Good. I'll wait for an updated version of the patch and then try to get
> it pushed by the end of the CF.

Sounds like a plan. Thanks.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2019-11-28 02:42:50 Re: Patch: New GUC prepared_statement_limit to limit memory used by prepared statements
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-11-28 02:35:29 Re: jsonb_set() strictness considered harmful to data