| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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 04:55:59 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1yiu6zSTXRGnLXDsmUOry9UHQHh7-1v_8qBuA+oBYV26A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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. I've tried forward porting it to the WAL patch to
test that as well, but didn't have any luck doing so.
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-12-12 04:58:07 | Re: Hash Indexes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-12-12 04:52:50 | Re: jsonb problematic operators |