Hi!
Tomas, I thought about this issue -
>What if you only need the first slice? In that case decoding everything
>will be a clear regression.
And completely agree with you, I'm currently working on it and will post
a patch a bit later. Another issue we have here - if we have multiple
slices requested - then we have to update cached slice from both sides,
the beginning and the end.
On update, yep, you're right
>Surely the update creates a new TOAST value, with a completely new TOAST
>pointer, new rows in the TOAST table etc. It's not updated in-place. So
>it'd end up with two independent entries in the TOAST cache.
>Or are you interested just in evicting the old value simply to free the
>memory, because we're not going to need that (now invisible) value? That
>seems interesting, but if it's too invasive or complex I'd just leave it
>up to the LRU eviction (at least for v1).
Again, yes, we do not need the old value after it was updated and
it is better to take care of it explicitly. It's a simple and not invasive
addition to your patch.
Could not agree with you about large values - it makes sense
to cache large values because the larger it is the more benefit
we will have from not detoasting it again and again. One way
is to keep them compressed, but what if we have data with very
low compression rate?
I also changed HASHACTION field value from HASH_ENTER to
HASH_ENTER_NULL to softly deal with case when we do not
have enough memory and added checks for if the value was stored
or not.