Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Masahiko Sawada
Тема Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Дата
Msg-id CAD21AoD6qGyGhd2PY4jbHu4Psyn3Ow4JzqEO6+YeU-=Ncvd8RA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum  (John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 2:17 PM John Naylor
<john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:46 AM John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:59 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks! Please let me know if there is something I can help with.
> >
> > I didn't get very far because the tests fail on 0004 in rt_verify_node:
> >
> > TRAP: failed Assert("n4->chunks[i - 1] < n4->chunks[i]"), File: "../src/backend/lib/radixtree.c", Line: 2186, PID:
18242
>
> Actually I do want to offer some general advice. Upthread I recommended a purely refactoring patch that added the
node-pointerstruct but did nothing else, so that the DSA changes would be smaller. 0004 attempted pointer tagging in
thesame commit, which makes it no longer a purely refactoring patch, so that 1) makes it harder to tell what part
causedthe bug and 2) obscures what is necessary for DSA pointers and what was additionally necessary for pointer
tagging.Shared memory support is a prerequisite for a shippable feature, but pointer tagging is (hopefully) a
performanceoptimization. Let's keep them separate. 

Totally agreed. I'll separate them in the next version patch. Thank
you for your advice.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Masahiko Sawada
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Следующее
От: Teja Mupparti
Дата:
Сообщение: MERGE regress test