| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |
| Date: | 2015-08-27 13:46:39 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.10.1508271541560.8280@sto |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>> v10b misses the checkpoint_sort part of the patch, and thus cannot be
>>> applied.
>>
>> Yes, indeed, the second part is expected to be applied on top of v10a.
>
> Oh, sorry. I'd somehow assumed they were two variants of the same patch
> (one with "slim" sorting and the other without).
The idea is that as these two features could be committed separately.
However, experiments show that flushing is really efficient when sorting
is done first, and moreover the two features conflict, so I've made two
dependent patches.
--
Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-08-27 13:47:04 | Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-08-27 13:44:53 | Re: What does RIR as in fireRIRrules stand for? |