On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 1:04 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> Thanks! And thanks for updating the commitfest entry!
Nice work!
--
Peter Geoghegan
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 12:34 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> On 03/04/2024 17:18, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > I noticed you didn't make the comment updates I suggested in my
> > version 13 here [1]. A few of them are outdated references to
> > heap_page_prune() and one to a now deleted variable
On 03/04/2024 17:18, Melanie Plageman wrote:
I noticed you didn't make the comment updates I suggested in my
version 13 here [1]. A few of them are outdated references to
heap_page_prune() and one to a now deleted variable name
(all_visible_except_removable).
I applied them to your v13 and
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 8:39 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> On 02/04/2024 16:11, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 01/04/2024 20:22, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> >> Review for 0003-0006 (I didn't have any new thoughts on 0002). I know
> >> you didn't modify them much/at all, but I noticed some
On 02/04/2024 16:11, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 01/04/2024 20:22, Melanie Plageman wrote:
Review for 0003-0006 (I didn't have any new thoughts on 0002). I know
you didn't modify them much/at all, but I noticed some things in my code
that could be better.
Ok, here's what I have now. I made a
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 01:24:27PM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 9:11 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >
> > On 01/04/2024 20:22, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > > Review for 0003-0006 (I didn't have any new thoughts on 0002). I know
> > > you didn't modify them much/at all,
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 9:11 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> On 01/04/2024 20:22, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > Review for 0003-0006 (I didn't have any new thoughts on 0002). I know
> > you didn't modify them much/at all, but I noticed some things in my code
> > that could be better.
>
> Ok, here's
On 01/04/2024 20:22, Melanie Plageman wrote:
Review for 0003-0006 (I didn't have any new thoughts on 0002). I know
you didn't modify them much/at all, but I noticed some things in my code
that could be better.
Ok, here's what I have now. I made a lot of small comment changes here
and there,
On 01/04/2024 20:22, Melanie Plageman wrote:
From 17e183835a968e81daf7b74a4164b243e2de35aa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Melanie Plageman
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 19:43:09 -0400
Subject: [PATCH v11 3/7] Introduce PRUNE_DO_* actions
We will eventually take additional actions in
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 1:37 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> Committed the first of the remaining patches with those changes. And
> also this, which is worth calling out:
>
> > if (prstate.htsv[offnum] == HEAPTUPLE_DEAD)
> > {
> > ItemId
On 01/04/2024 19:08, Melanie Plageman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 05:17:51PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
diff --git a/src/backend/access/heap/pruneheap.c
b/src/backend/access/heap/pruneheap.c
@@ -256,15 +270,16 @@ heap_page_prune(Relation relation, Buffer buffer,
tup.t_tableOid
On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 05:17:51PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 30/03/2024 07:57, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>
> > The final state of the code could definitely use more cleanup. I've been
> > staring at it for awhile, so I could use some thoughts/ideas about what
> > part to focus on
On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 05:17:51PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 30/03/2024 07:57, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 12:32:21PM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 12:00 PM Heikki Linnakangas
> > > wrote:
> > > > Here's another idea: In the
On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 8:00 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 1:57 AM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> > I think that we are actually successfully removing more RECENTLY_DEAD
> > HOT tuples than in master with heap_page_prune()'s new approach, and I
> > think it is correct; but let
On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 1:57 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> I think that we are actually successfully removing more RECENTLY_DEAD
> HOT tuples than in master with heap_page_prune()'s new approach, and I
> think it is correct; but let me know if I am missing something.
/me blinks.
Isn't zero the
On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 12:00 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> On 29/03/2024 07:04, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 11:07:10AM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> >> These comments could use another pass. I had added some extra
> >> (probably redundant) content when I thought I
On 29/03/2024 07:04, Melanie Plageman wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 11:07:10AM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
These comments could use another pass. I had added some extra
(probably redundant) content when I thought I was refactoring it a
certain way and then changed my mind.
Attached is a
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 4:49 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> On 28/03/2024 03:53, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 01:04:04AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> One change with this is that live_tuples and many of the other fields are
> >> now again updated, even if the
On 28/03/2024 03:53, Melanie Plageman wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 01:04:04AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
One change with this is that live_tuples and many of the other fields are
now again updated, even if the caller doesn't need them. It was hard to skip
them in a way that would save
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 01:04:04AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 27/03/2024 20:26, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:18 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > >
> > > On 27/03/2024 17:18, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > > > I need some way to modify the control flow or
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 2:26 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:18 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >
> > On 27/03/2024 17:18, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > > I need some way to modify the control flow or accounting such that I
> > > know which HEAPTUPLE_RECENTLY_DEAD tuples
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:18 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> On 27/03/2024 17:18, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > I need some way to modify the control flow or accounting such that I
> > know which HEAPTUPLE_RECENTLY_DEAD tuples will not be marked LP_DEAD.
> > And a way to consider freezing and do
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 9:36 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> * "Freeze" NewRelfrozenXid/NewRelminMxid trackers.
> *
> * Trackers used when heap_freeze_execute_prepared freezes, or when
> there
> * are zero freeze plans for a page. It is always valid for
>
On 27/03/2024 17:18, Melanie Plageman wrote:
I need some way to modify the control flow or accounting such that I
know which HEAPTUPLE_RECENTLY_DEAD tuples will not be marked LP_DEAD.
And a way to consider freezing and do live tuple accounting for these
and HEAPTUPLE_LIVE tuples exactly once.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 5:46 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 09:33:38PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 24/03/2024 18:32, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 9:28 AM Heikki Linnakangas
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In heap_page_prune_and_freeze(),
Thanks for committing the new WAL format!
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 3:33 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> On 24/03/2024 18:32, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 9:28 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >>
> >> In heap_page_prune_and_freeze(), we now do some extra work on each live
>
On 24/03/2024 18:32, Melanie Plageman wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 9:28 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
In heap_page_prune_and_freeze(), we now do some extra work on each live
tuple, to set the all_visible_except_removable correctly. And also to
update live_tuples, recently_dead_tuples and
On 24/03/2024 21:55, Melanie Plageman wrote:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 01:09:30AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 20/03/2024 21:17, Melanie Plageman wrote:
There is another patch in the commitfest that touches this area: "Recording
whether Heap2/PRUNE records are from VACUUM or from
On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 01:09:30AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 20/03/2024 21:17, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > Attached patch changes-for-0001.patch has a bunch of updated comments --
> > especially for heapam_xlog.h (including my promised diagram). And a few
> > suggestions (mostly
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 9:28 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> In heap_page_prune_and_freeze(), we now do some extra work on each live
> tuple, to set the all_visible_except_removable correctly. And also to
> update live_tuples, recently_dead_tuples and hastup. When we're not
> freezing, that's a
On 20/03/2024 21:17, Melanie Plageman wrote:
Attached patch changes-for-0001.patch has a bunch of updated comments --
especially for heapam_xlog.h (including my promised diagram). And a few
suggestions (mostly changes that I should have made before).
New version of these WAL format changes
On 20/03/2024 23:03, Melanie Plageman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 03:15:49PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
diff --git a/src/include/access/heapam.h b/src/include/access/heapam.h
index ee0eca8ae02..b2015f5a1ac 100644
--- a/src/include/access/heapam.h
+++ b/src/include/access/heapam.h
@@
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 03:15:49PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> 0009-: The rest of the v4 patches, rebased over the WAL format changes. I
> also added a few small commits for little cleanups that caught my eye, let
> me know if you disagree with those.
This review is just of the patches
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 4:06 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> > What about the issue of cleanup locks, which aren't needed and aren't
> > taken with the current heapam VACUUM record type? Will you preserve
> > that aspect of the existing design?
>
> Yep, we have a flag to indicate whether or not a
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 4:04 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 9:15 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > > I made it its own sub-record (xlhp_conflict_horizon) less to help with
> > > alignment (though we can use all the help we can get there) and more to
> > > keep it from
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 9:15 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > I made it its own sub-record (xlhp_conflict_horizon) less to help with
> > alignment (though we can use all the help we can get there) and more to
> > keep it from getting lost. When you look at heapam_xlog.h, you can see
> > what a
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 03:15:49PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 20/03/2024 03:36, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 01:15:21AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > > On 15/03/2024 02:56, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > > > Okay, so I was going to start using xl_heap_prune
On 15/03/2024 02:56, Melanie Plageman wrote:
Okay, so I was going to start using xl_heap_prune for vacuum here too,
but I realized it would be bigger because of the
snapshotConflictHorizon. Do you think there is a non-terrible way to
make the snapshotConflictHorizon optional? Like with a flag?
On 09/03/2024 22:41, Melanie Plageman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 7:59 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Does GlobalVisTestIsRemovableXid() handle FrozenTransactionId correctly?
Okay, so I thought a lot about this, and I don't understand how
GlobalVisTestIsRemovableXid() would not handle
Thanks so much for the review!
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 7:59 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> On 25/01/2024 00:49, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>
> > The attached patch set is broken up into many separate commits for
> > ease of review. Each patch does a single thing which can be explained
> > plainly
On 25/01/2024 00:49, Melanie Plageman wrote:
Generates 30% fewer WAL records and 12% fewer WAL bytes -- which,
depending on what else is happening on the system, can lead to vacuum
spending substantially less time on WAL writing and syncing (often 15%
less time on WAL writes and 10% less time on
41 matches
Mail list logo
