Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum

On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 12:26 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 11:30 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 3:42 PM John Naylor
> > <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 1:51 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've attached the new version patches. I merged improvements and fixes
> > > > I did in the v29 patch.
> > >
> > > I haven't yet had a chance to look at those closely, since I've had to devote time to other commitments. I
rememberI wasn't particularly impressed that v29-0008 mixed my requested name-casing changes with a bunch of other
randomthings. Separating those out would be an obvious way to make it easier for me to look at, whenever I can get back
tothis. I need to look at the iteration changes as well, in addition to testing memory measurement (thanks for the new
results,they look encouraging). 
> >
> > Okay, I'll separate them again.
>
> Attached new patch series. In addition to separate them again, I've
> fixed a conflict with HEAD.
>

I've attached updated version patches to make cfbot happy. Also, I've
splitted fixup patches further(from 0007 except for 0016 and 0018) to
make reviews easy. These patches have the prefix radix tree, tidstore,
and vacuum, indicating the part it changes. 0016 patch is to change
DSA so that we can specify both the initial and max segment size and
0017 makes use of it in vacuumparallel.c I'm still researching a
better solution for memory limitation but it's the best solution for
me for now.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com