From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Hash Indexes |
Date: | 2016-12-12 04:58:07 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Lm3w1bE75wf7+3W+tQjXrjMpg1Y7Bf0-A4OXpcn5SkZg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> >
>> > With above fixes, the test ran successfully for more than a day.
>> >
>>
>> There was a small typo in the previous patch which is fixed in
>> attached. I don't think it will impact the test results if you have
>> already started the test with the previous patch, but if not, then it
>> is better to test with attached.
>
>
> Thanks, I've already been running the previous one for several hours, and
> so far it looks good.
>
Thanks.
> I've tried forward porting it to the WAL patch to
> test that as well, but didn't have any luck doing so.
>
I think we can verify WAL patch separately. I am already working on it.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-12-12 04:59:32 | Re: jsonb problematic operators |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2016-12-12 04:55:59 | Re: Hash Indexes |