Re: [WIP] [B-Tree] Retail IndexTuple deletion
От | Юрий Соколов |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [WIP] [B-Tree] Retail IndexTuple deletion |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAL-rCA0BkRJgEfkQdDkii6kt0L-_8xcYqraaSmrrn_jzTFx-Pg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [WIP] [B-Tree] Retail IndexTuple deletion ("Andrey V. Lepikhov" <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>) |
Ответы |
Re: [WIP] [B-Tree] Retail IndexTuple deletion
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
чт, 28 июн. 2018 г., 8:37 Andrey V. Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>:
On 28.06.2018 05:00, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:40 PM, Andrey V. Lepikhov
> <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> I still believe that the patch for physical TID ordering in btree:
>> 1) has its own value, not only for target deletion,
>> 2) will require only a few local changes in my code,
>> and this patches can be developed independently.
>
> I want to be clear on something now: I just don't think that this
> patch has any chance of getting committed without something like my
> own patch to go with it. The worst case for your patch without that
> component is completely terrible. It's not really important for you to
> actually formally make it part of your patch, so I'm not going to
> insist on that or anything, but the reality is that my patch does not
> have independent value -- and neither does yours.
>
As I wrote before in the last email, I will integrate TID sorting to my
patches right now. Please, give me access to the last version of your
code, if it possible.
You can track the progress at https://github.com/danolivo/postgres git
repository
Peter is absolutely right, imho: tie-breaking by TID within index
ordering is inevitable for reliable performance of this patch.
With regards,
Sokolov Yura.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: