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

On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 8:04 PM John Naylor
<john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 6:53 PM John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 9:34 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > BTW cfbot reported that some regression tests failed due to OOM. I've
> > > attached the patch to fix it.
> >
> > Seems worth doing now rather than later, so added this and squashed most of the rest together.
>
> This segfaults because of a mistake fixing a rebase conflict, so v40 attached.
>

Thank you for updating the patch set.

On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 11:33 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 8:05 PM John Naylor
> <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > Looking at the tidstore tests again after some months, I'm not particularly pleased with the amount of code
requiredfor how little it seems to be testing, nor the output when something fails. (I wonder how hard it would be to
haveSQL functions that add blocks/offsets to the tid store, and emit tuples of tids found in the store.) 
>
> It would not be hard to have such SQL functions. I'll try it.

I've updated the regression tests for tidstore so that it uses SQL
functions to add blocks/offsets and dump its contents. The new test
covers the same test coverages but it's executed using SQL functions
instead of executing all tests in one SQL function.

0008 patch fixes a bug in tidstore which I found during this work. We
didn't recreate the radix tree in the same memory context when
TidStoreReset().

Regards,

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