Horton

Re: SSI bug?

Dan Ports <drkp@csail.mit.edu>

View thread
From: Dan Ports <drkp@csail.mit.edu>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamt@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-03-31T18:12:16Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Update key words table for 9.1

  2. Documented some ecpg command line options that were missing:

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:06:30AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> The only thing I've been on the fence about is whether it
> makes more sense to allocate it all up front or to continue to allow
> incremental allocation but set a hard limit on the number of entries
> allocated for each shared memory HTAB.  Is there a performance-
> related reason to choose one path or the other?

Seems like it would be marginally better to allocate it up front -- then
you don't have the cost of having to split buckets later as it grows.

Dan

-- 
Dan R. K. Ports              MIT CSAIL                http://drkp.net/