| From: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Updated posix fadvise patch v19 |
| Date: | 2008-11-14 22:40:34 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070811141440r482a9a9ctdb9abc9464786907@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> As this hasn't happened and I haven't been able to demonstrate it being useful
> myself I guess it makes more sense to separate the two now and set the
> sequential scan stuff aside until someone can demonstrate it being useful.
Sounds good. How soon do you think you can post updated patches?
> But as I said, it was mostly so I could tell what the slow start algorithm was
> doing and make sure it was doing anything at all in testing.
In that case, I think you should just rip it all out for now.
>> Department of nitpicking:
>
> Will clean these up, they all look valid. I thought I did clean things up
> already -- I guess you should be happy you're looking at it *after* that
> cleanup :/
Maybe it's you who should be glad... :-)
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-11-14 23:00:04 | Re: libpq-events windows gotcha |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-11-14 22:33:40 | Re: Updated posix fadvise patch v19 |