Re: On-disk bitmap index patch
От
Jie Zhang
Тема
Re: On-disk bitmap index patch
Дата
Msg-id
C0E9B584.8F43%jzhang@greenplum.com
Ответ на
Re: On-disk bitmap index patch (Gavin Sherry)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
automatic system info tool? Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: automatic system info tool? Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Re: automatic system info tool? Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: automatic system info tool? Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: automatic system info tool? Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>
Re: automatic system info tool? Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: automatic system info tool? Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>
Re: automatic system info tool? "Bort, Paul" <pbort@tmwsystems.com>
Re: automatic system info tool? Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>
Re: automatic system info tool? Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com>
Re: automatic system info tool? "Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Re: automatic system info tool? "Bort, Paul" <pbort@tmwsystems.com>
Re: automatic system info tool? "Andrej Ricnik-Bay" <andrej.groups@gmail.com>
Re: automatic system info tool? Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Thanks Tom and Gavin for your comments! Yes, this patch is generated against 8.2 in a short time. As long as the code is working, I post the patch to get some comments and help. >> >> * The xlog routines need help; they seem to not be updated for recent >> changes in the API for xlog recovery code. > > Yep. The patch was actually against 8.1 and was hastily brought up to 8.2. > I think Jie's intention was to simply let everyone know that this was > going on. Thanks for pointing this out. I didn't notice that these are changed in 8.2. > >> >> * The hacks on vacuum.c (where it tests the AM name) are utterly >> unacceptable. If you need the main code to do something special for a >> particular index AM, define a bool flag column for it in pg_am. > > Yes. Sounds good. > >> >> * The interface to the existing executor bitmap scan code is mighty >> messy --- seems like there's a lot of almost duplicate code, a lot >> of rather invasive hacking, etc. This needs to be rethought and >> refactored. > > I agree. I will think about this more. > >> >> * Why in the world is it introducing duplicate copies of a lot >> of btree comparison functions? Use the ones that are there. > > Yes, I raised this with Jie and she has fixed it. One thought is, we may > want to rename those comparison functions prefixed with 'bm' to make their > naming less confusing. They'll be used by btree, gin and bitmap index > methods. Anyway, a seperate patch. Yeah, the main problem I hesitated to use btree's comparison functions because of those function names starting with 'bt'. Since Gavin told me that Gin is using those functions as well, I had changed them. Renaming them would be good. > >> >> * The patch itself is a mess: it introduces .orig and .rej files, >> changes around $PostgreSQL$ lines, etc. >> > > Right, not to mention patches to configure and a lot of style which needs > to be knocked into shape. > The way I generate a patch is kind of clumsy. I need to find a better way to do that. I will start fixing these. Thanks, Jie
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления