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

From John Naylor
Subject Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Date
Msg-id CAFBsxsGXGC-D_j=syuQppmXFtRgdrhRayseQf49ADAH4FoNBMQ@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 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-pointer struct but did nothing else, so that the DSA changes would be smaller. 0004 attempted pointer tagging in the same commit, which makes it no longer a purely refactoring patch, so that 1) makes it harder to tell what part caused the 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 performance optimization. Let's keep them separate.

--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ian Lawrence Barwick
Date:
Subject: Re: Allow file inclusion in pg_hba and pg_ident files
Next
From: kuroda.keisuke@nttcom.co.jp
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_rewind: warn when checkpoint hasn't happened after promotion