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

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 8:36 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 6:12 PM John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com> wrote:

> > - RT_KEY_GET_SHIFT is not covered for key=0:
> >
> > https://anarazel.de/postgres/cov/16-vs-HEAD-2024-04-14/src/include/lib/radixtree.h.gcov.html#L803
> >
> > That should be fairly simple to add to the tests.
>
> There are two paths to call RT_KEY_GET_SHIFT():
>
> 1. RT_SET() -> RT_KEY_GET_SHIFT()
> 2. RT_SET() -> RT_EXTEND_UP() -> RT_KEY_GET_SHIFT()
>
> In both cases, it's called when key > tree->ctl->max_val. Since the
> minimum value of max_val is 255, RT_KEY_GET_SHIFT() is never called
> when key=0.

Ah, right, so it is dead code. Nothing to worry about, but it does
point the way to some simplifications, which I've put together in the
attached.

> > - RT_DELETE: "if (key > tree->ctl->max_val)" is not covered:
> >
> > https://anarazel.de/postgres/cov/16-vs-HEAD-2024-04-14/src/include/lib/radixtree.h.gcov.html#L2644
> >
> > That should be easy to add.
>
> Agreed. The patch is attached.

LGTM

> > - TidStoreCreate* has some memory clamps that are not covered:
> >
> > https://anarazel.de/postgres/cov/16-vs-HEAD-2024-04-14/src/backend/access/common/tidstore.c.gcov.html#L179
> > https://anarazel.de/postgres/cov/16-vs-HEAD-2024-04-14/src/backend/access/common/tidstore.c.gcov.html#L234
> >
> > Maybe we could experiment with using 1MB for shared, and something
> > smaller for local.
>
> I've confirmed that the local and shared tidstore with small max sizes
> such as 4kB and 1MB worked. Currently the max size is hard-coded in
> test_tidstore.c but if we use work_mem as the max size, we can pass
> different max sizes for local and shared in the test script.

Seems okay, do you want to try that and see how it looks?