Hi,
Thanks for taking a look!
On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 1:18 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 2:35 AM James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I talked to Andres and Peter again today, and out of that conversation
> > I have some observations and ideas for future improvements.
> >
> > 1. The most trivial case where this is useful is INSERT: we have a
> > target page, and it may have dead tuples, so trying to prune may
> > result in us being able to use the target page rather than getting a
> > new page.
> > 2. The next most trivial case is where UPDATE (potentially after
> > failing to find space for a HOT tuple on the source tuple's page);
> > much like the INSERT case our backend's target page may benefit from
> > pruning.
>
> By looking at the patch I believe that v2-0003 is implementing these 2
> ideas. So my question is are we planning to prune the backend's
> current target page only or if we can not find space in that then we
> are targetting to prune the other target pages as well which we are
> getting from FSM? Because in the patch you have put a check in a loop
> it will try to prune every page it gets from the FSM not just the
> current target page of the backend. Just wanted to understand if this
> is intentional.
Yes, just like with our opportunistically pruning on each read during
a select I think we should at least check when we have a new target
page. This seems particularly true since we're hoping to write to the
page anyway, and the cost of additionally making pruning changes to
that page is low. I looked at freespace.c, and it doesn't appear that
getting the block from the FSM does this already, so we're not
duplicating any existing work.
Regards,
James