Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
От | Masahiko Sawada |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAD21AoCdLnoB5w4PNnD7E_PNj-=VqqQUx7ZCpv+qYcM0KRnvPA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 1:38 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:17 PM John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 9:50 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I saw a SIGSEGV there when using tidstore to write a fix for something else. > > > > Patch attached. > > > > > > Great find, thank you for the patch! > > > > +1 > > > > (This occurred to me a few days ago, but I was far from my computer.) > > > > With the purge function that Noah proposed, I believe we can also get > > rid of the comment at the top of the .sql test file warning of a > > maintenance hazard: > > ..."To avoid adding duplicates, > > -- each call to do_set_block_offsets() should use different block > > -- numbers." > > Good point. Removed. > > > > > > of do_gset_block_offset() and check_set_block_offsets(). If these are > > > annoying, we can remove the cases of array[1] and array[1,2]. > > > > Let's keep those -- 32-bit platforms should also exercise this path. > > Agreed. > > I've attached a new patch. I'll push it tonight, if there is no further comment. > Pushed. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: