Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take

> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 2:05 AM Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I tried running the pgbench performance tests with minimal clients in my laptop and I didn't
> find any performance issues, may be issue is visible only with higher clients. Even with
> perf tool, I am not able to get a clear problem function. As you said, combining of all changes
> leads to some overhead.

Just out of curiosity I've also tried tpc-c from oltpbench (in the very same
simple environment), it doesn't show any significant difference from master as
well.

> Here I attached the cumulative patches with further fixes and basic syntax regress tests also.

While testing the latest version I've noticed, that you didn't include the fix
for HeapTupleInvisible (so I see the error again), was it intentionally?

> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 2:55 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> FWIW, now that oids are removed, and the tuple table slot abstraction
> got in, I'm working on rebasing the pluggable storage patchset ontop of
> that.

Yes, please. I've tried it myself for reviewing purposes, but the rebasing
speed was not impressive. Also I want to suggest to move it from github and
make a regular patchset, since it's already a bit confusing in the sense what
goes where and which patch to apply on top of which branch.