Re: review: autovacuum_work_mem
От | Nigel Heron |
---|---|
Тема | Re: review: autovacuum_work_mem |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHhq2w+8PZh5zgiSbE6STo60OpcWdbUDdc2LmW-NbtzhKRkUJA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: review: autovacuum_work_mem (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > Please reply to the original thread in future (even if the Reply-to > Message-ID is the same, I see this as a separate thread). > sorry about that, when i added "review" to the subject gmail removed the thread info. for reference the original thread started here: <http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZTwLA8Ef2DTvbwM1b1zEVU_eN3N4rReGNU5_zFyjNGi6w@mail.gmail.com> > > Revision attached. > -- > Peter Geoghegan Review for Peter Geoghegan's v2 patch in CF 2013-11: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1262 Submission review ----------------- * Is the patch in a patch format which has context? Yes * Does it apply cleanly to the current git master (04eee1fa9ee80dabf7cf4b8b9106897272e9b291)? patching file src/backend/commands/vacuumlazy.c Hunk #2 succeeded at 1582 (offset 1 line). * Does it include reasonable tests, necessary doc patches, etc? Documentation patches included. No additional tests. Usability review ----------------- * Does the patch actually implement that? Yes. * Do we want that? Yes. The original thread has references, see <http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZTwLA8Ef2DTvbwM1b1zEVU_eN3N4rReGNU5_zFyjNGi6w@mail.gmail.com> * Do we already have it? No. * Does it follow SQL spec, or the community-agreed behavior? SQL spec: n/a community: Yes. The original thread has references, see <http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZTwLA8Ef2DTvbwM1b1zEVU_eN3N4rReGNU5_zFyjNGi6w@mail.gmail.com> * Does it include pg_dump support (if applicable)? n/a Feature test ----------------- * Does the feature work as advertised? Yes. * Are there corner cases the author has failed to consider? None that i can see. * Are there any assertion failures or crashes? No. Performance review ----------------- * Does the patch slow down simple tests? No. * If it claims to improve performance, does it? n/a * Does it slow down other things? No. Coding review ----------------- * Does it follow the project coding guidelines? Yes. * Are there portability issues? None that i can see. * Will it work on Windows/BSD etc? None that i can see. (I only tested it on linux though) * Does it do what it says, correctly? Yes. * Does it produce compiler warnings? No. * Can you make it crash? No. Architecture review ----------------- * Is everything done in a way that fits together coherently with other features/modules? Yes. * Are there interdependencies that can cause problems? No. -nigel.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: