| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction |
| Date: | 2014-09-23 21:50:19 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob1g80sGDXWkNnk9zengEi7s16mKjMWKQbfhPYOxHSiQg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I did some more experimentation on this. Attached is a patch that
>>> JUST does #1, and, ...
>
>> ...and that was the wrong patch. Thanks to Heikki for point that out.
>> Second try.
>
> But the results you gave in the previous message were correctly
> attributed?
The patch I attached the first time was just the last commit in the
git repository where I wrote the patch, rather than the changes that I
made on top of that commit. So, yes, the results from the previous
message are with the patch attached to the follow-up. I just typed
the wrong git command when attempting to extract that patch to attach
it to the email.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Smith | 2014-09-23 22:02:57 | Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-09-23 21:43:57 | Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction |