| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Missing CFI in hlCover()? |
| Date: | 2020-07-31 12:36:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20200731123625.GB12375@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> >> Here's a proposed patch along that line.
>
> > I've back-patched this to 11 (which was just a bit of fuzz) and tested
> > it out with a couple of different queries that were causing issues
> > previously on the archive server, and they finish in a much more
> > reasonable time and react faster to cancel requests/signals.
>
> Yeah, I'd tried this locally using the data from the one test case you
> showed me, and it seemed to fix that.
Good stuff.
> > So, looks good to me, and would certainly be nice to get this into the
> > next set of releases, so the archive server doesn't get stuck anymore.
>
> I'll push this tomorrow if nobody has objected to it.
Sounds good.
> BTW, I had noticed last night that hlFirstIndex is being unreasonably
> stupid. Many of the "words" have null item pointers and hence can't
> possibly match any query item (I think because we have "words" for
> inter-word spaces/punctuation as well as the actual words). Checking
> that, as in the attached v2 patch, makes things a bit faster yet.
Nice, looks good to me.
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hamid Akhtar | 2020-07-31 12:40:34 | Re: track_planning causing performance regression |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Sharma | 2020-07-31 12:32:24 | Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..." |