Re: Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage
Date: 2017-09-11 07:13:29
Message-ID: CAB7nPqT2qRwnEZmxp0H3RVvwfAKvhQYZdfr-sj_gZfKGFwL1CQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I have prepared separate patches for hash and btree index. I think
> for another type of indexes, it is better to first fix the pd_lower
> issue.

Just wondering (sorry I have not looked at your patch in details)...
Have you tested the compressibility effects of this patch on FPWs with
and without wal_compression?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Khandekar 2017-09-11 07:16:06 Re: expanding inheritance in partition bound order
Previous Message Michael Banck 2017-09-11 07:11:57 Re: Create replication slot in pg_basebackup if requested and not yet present