On Mon, Dec 8, 2025 at 10:47 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yielding just because you've scanned N index pages/tuples/whatever is
> harder to think about. The stream shouldn't get far ahead unless it's
> recently been useful for I/O concurrency (though optimal distance
> heuristics are an open problem), but in this case a single invocation
> of the block number callback can call ReadBuffer() an arbitrary number
> of times, filtering out all the index tuples as it rampages through
> the whole index IIUC. I see why you might want to yield periodically
> if you can, but I also wonder how much that can really help if you
> still have to pick up where you left off next time.
I think of it as a necessary precaution against pathological behavior
where the amount of memory used to cache matching tuples/TIDs gets out
of hand. There's no specific reason to expect that to happen (or no
good reason). But I'm pretty sure that it'll prove necessary to pay
non-zero attention to how much work has been done since the last time
we returned a tuple (when there's a tuple available to return).
> I guess it
> depends on the distribution of matches.
To be clear, I haven't done any kind of modelling of the problems in
this area. Once I do that (in 2026), I'll be able to say more about
the requirements. Maybe Tomas could take a look sooner?
Right now my focus is on getting the basic interfaces/API revisions in
better shape. And avoiding regressions while doing so.
--
Peter Geoghegan
