Re: Change GUC hashtable to use simplehash?

From: John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Anton A(dot) Melnikov" <a(dot)melnikov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Change GUC hashtable to use simplehash?
Date: 2025-02-13 01:49:41
Message-ID: CANWCAZZJ0NqpsW27n3xArpStNhhq1qv6KO3v_mBc8vnxE0WHMw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 3:42 AM Anton A. Melnikov
<a(dot)melnikov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On 29.01.2025 10:02, John Naylor wrote:
> > This is done -- thanks for the report, and for testing.
>
> It's good that this is done! But i still see the problem.

Hi, my understanding was you previously tested with the revert. Did
you not actually test, or are you building differently for these
cases?

--
John Naylor
Amazon Web Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2025-02-13 01:58:12 Re: Skip collecting decoded changes of already-aborted transactions
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2025-02-13 01:17:56 Re: Separate GUC for replication origins