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 CAD21AoD6qGyGhd2PY4jbHu4Psyn3Ow4JzqEO6+YeU-=Ncvd8RA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum  (John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>)
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Next
From: Teja Mupparti
Date:
Subject: MERGE regress test