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

From Pavel Borisov
Subject Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Date
Msg-id CALT9ZEH11NYV8AOzKb1bWhCf6J0H=H31f0MgT9xX+HdqvcA1rw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum  (John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum  (John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 16:27, John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 9:08 AM John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've attached a mostly-polished update on runtime embeddable values,
> storing up to 3 offsets in the child pointer (1 on 32-bit platforms).
> As discussed, this includes a macro to cap max possible offset that
> can be stored in the bitmap, which I believe only reduces the valid
> offset range for 32kB pages on 32-bit platforms. Even there, it allows
> for more line pointers than can possibly be useful. It also splits
> into two parts for readability. It would be committed in two pieces as
> well, since they are independently useful.

I pushed both of these and see that mylodon complains that anonymous
unions are a C11 feature. I'm not actually sure that the union with
uintptr_t is actually needed, though, since that's not accessed as
such here. The simplest thing seems to get rid if the union and name
the inner struct "header", as in the attached.

Provided  uintptr_t is not accessed it might be good to get rid of it.

Maybe this patch also need correction in this:
+#define NUM_FULL_OFFSETS ((sizeof(uintptr_t) - sizeof(uint8) - sizeof(int8)) / sizeof(OffsetNumber))

Regards,
Pavel 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: Improve eviction algorithm in ReorderBuffer
Next
From: John Naylor
Date:
Subject: Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum