On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.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?
>
I have debugged it to see that it is executing the code path to
eliminate the hole for the hash index.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers