patch - per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost
in [PgSql]
|
From: Jaime Casanova on 3 Jan 2010 23:42 On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> in syscache.c > > Hmm, I see this needs to be rebased over Tom's latest changes, but the > conflict I got was in syscache.h, rather than syscache.c.  Not sure if > that's what you were going for or if there's another issue.  Updated > patch attached. > ah! yeah! it has been a long holiday ;) -- Atentamente, Jaime Casanova Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL AsesorÃa y desarrollo de sistemas Guayaquil - Ecuador Cel. +59387171157 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Alvaro Herrera on 4 Jan 2010 10:42 Robert Haas escribi�: > Hmm, I see this needs to be rebased over Tom's latest changes, but the > conflict I got was in syscache.h, rather than syscache.c. Not sure if > that's what you were going for or if there's another issue. Updated > patch attached. FWIW I think the reloptions code in this patch is sane enough. The fact that it was this easily written means that the API for reloptions was reasonably chosen, thanks :-) Hmm, it seems we're missing a "need_initialization = false" at the bottom of initialize_reloptions ... I'm wondering what happened to that?? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 4 Jan 2010 13:39 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> writes: > Hmm, I see this needs to be rebased over Tom's latest changes, but the > conflict I got was in syscache.h, rather than syscache.c. Not sure if > that's what you were going for or if there's another issue. Updated > patch attached. I'm planning to go look at Naylor's bki refactoring patch now. Assuming there isn't any showstopper problem with that, do you object to it getting committed first? Either order is going to create a merge problem, but it seems like we'd be best off to get Naylor's patch in so people can resync affected patches before the January commitfest starts. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 4 Jan 2010 13:44 On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> writes: >> Hmm, I see this needs to be rebased over Tom's latest changes, but the >> conflict I got was in syscache.h, rather than syscache.c. Not sure if >> that's what you were going for or if there's another issue. Updated >> patch attached. > > I'm planning to go look at Naylor's bki refactoring patch now. Assuming > there isn't any showstopper problem with that, do you object to it > getting committed first? Either order is going to create a merge > problem, but it seems like we'd be best off to get Naylor's patch in > so people can resync affected patches before the January commitfest > starts. My only objection to that is that if we're going to add attoptions also, I'd like to get this committed first before I start working on that, and we're running short on time. If you can commit his patch in the next day or two, then I am fine with rebasing mine afterwards, but if it needs more work than that then I would prefer to commit mine so I can move on. Is that reasonable? ....Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 4 Jan 2010 13:48
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> writes: > My only objection to that is that if we're going to add attoptions > also, I'd like to get this committed first before I start working on > that, and we're running short on time. If you can commit his patch in > the next day or two, then I am fine with rebasing mine afterwards, but > if it needs more work than that then I would prefer to commit mine so > I can move on. Is that reasonable? Fair enough --- if I can't get it done today I will let you know and hold off. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |