Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Masahiko Sawada
Subject Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Date
Msg-id CAD21AoCfwP6GsnoOuQ=dCAXQV65JQBv84t65t+RaQ6fBdqzYKQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum  (John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 6:58 PM John Naylor
<john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 8:52 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Overall, radix tree implementations have good numbers. Once we got an
> > agreement on moving in this direction, I'll start a new thread for
> > that and move the implementation further; there are many things to do
> > and discuss: deletion, API design, SIMD support, more tests etc.
>
> +1
>

Thanks!

I've attached an updated version patch. It is still WIP but I've
implemented deletion and improved test cases and comments.

> (FWIW, I think the current thread is still fine.)

Okay, agreed.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: HOLD_INTERRUPTS() vs ProcSignalBarrier
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: First draft of the PG 15 release notes