| From: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: HOT patch - version 15 |
| Date: | 2007-09-13 16:42:40 |
| Message-ID: | 46E96880.20208@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> On 9/13/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> You have apparently
>> decided to redefine the WAL record format as using one-based rather than
>> zero-based item offsets, which would be fine if any of the rest of the
>> code had been changed to agree ...
>>
>>
> I know Heikki changed that when he did the initial refactoring, but not
> sure why. May be he wanted to make it more consistent.
Yeah, I just checked the work-in-progress patch I sent you back in July.
I refactored it to use one-based offsets for consistency, since I
modified log_heap_clean quite heavily anyway.
It's possible that I broke it in the process, I was only interested in
testing the performance characteristics of the simplified pruning scheme.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2007-09-13 16:57:50 | Re: HOT patch - version 15 |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2007-09-13 16:06:17 | Re: HOT patch - version 15 |