Hi, On 2023-02-08 11:16:47 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 2/7/23 21:18, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > Independent of this failure, I'm worried about the cost/benefit analysis of > > a > > pglz change that changes this much at once. It's quite hard to review. > > > > I agree. > > I think I managed to understand what the patch does during the review, > but it's so much harder - it'd definitely be better to have this split > into smaller parts, somehow. Interestingly enough the commit message > actually says this: > > This patch accumulates several changes to pglz compression: > 1. Convert macro-functions to regular functions for readability > 2. Use more compact hash table with uint16 indexes instead of pointers > 3. Avoid prev pointer in hash table > 4. Use 4-byte comparisons during a search instead of 1-byte > comparisons > > Which I think is a pretty good recipe how to split the patch. (And we > also need a better commit message, or at least a proposal.) > > This'd probably also help when investigating the extra byte issue, > discussed yesterday. (Assuming it's not related to the invalid access > reported by valgrind / asan).
Due to the sanitizer changes, and this feedback, I'm marking the entry as waiting on author. Greetings, Andres Freund