| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: GiST subsplit question |
| Date: | 2012-06-26 15:28:23 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob_t5i9u8WC0SejETqihVpxb=ao_u-FXhCb1As0dxhPcw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Alexander Korotkov
<aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> So, do we demote that message to a DEBUG1? Or do we make it more clear
>> what the authors of a specific picksplit are supposed to do to avoid
>> that problem? Or am I misunderstanding something?
>
>
> +1 for demote message to DEBUG1. I think it shouldn't be so noisy, it just
> indicates something could be improved.
> Also I think we defenitely need to document secondary split. Now it's no
> chances to understand without reverse engeneering it from code.
I'm happy to go demote the message if we have consensus on that, but
somebody else is going to need to provide the doc patch. Any takers?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Euler Taveira | 2012-06-26 15:29:33 | Re: libpq compression |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-06-26 15:24:51 | Re: empty backup_label |