Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility

From: Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility
Date: 2018-03-30 23:05:36
Message-ID: 5ABEC2C0.5040207@anastigmatix.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 03/30/18 16:21, Tom Lane wrote:

> Yup. Pushed with some rewriting of the comments.

Thanks!

> I did not like the proposed test case too much, particularly not its
> undocumented API change for check_pg_config,

Other than that API change, was there something the test case could have
done differently to make you like it more?

-Chap

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2018-03-30 23:08:24 Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-03-30 22:37:41 Re: Passing current_database to BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnection