Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch

From: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Date: 2010-10-01 01:07:07
Message-ID: AANLkTi=FowVPVEbPfMxfH_DSSz8aPSwMtoDJE5fTdr5m@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi, Leonardo-san,

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The wording should be something like "CLUSTER requires transient disk
> space equal to about twice the size of the table plus its indexes".

Could you merge those discussions into the final patch?
Also, please check whether my modification broke your patch.
Thank you.

--
Itagaki Takahiro

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2010-10-01 01:32:38 Re: Postgres vs. intel ccNUMA on Linux
Previous Message Greg Smith 2010-10-01 01:02:51 Re: O_DSYNC broken on MacOS X?