Horton

Re: SSI bug?

Kevin Grittner <kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov>

View thread
From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
To: "Dan Ports" <drkp@csail.mit.edu>
Cc: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, "YAMAMOTO Takashi" <yamt@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp>, <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-03-31T18:23:50Z
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:

Attachments

Dan Ports <drkp@csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> 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.
 
The attached patch should cover that.
 
-Kevin