Hi > It looks like a reasonable idea as it also simplifies the > pg_visibility_map_summary() function. I'm going to push it, barring > any objections. Obviously no objections, Using visibilitymap_count() simplifies the code and improves performance, with no behavior change.
Thanks On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 6:17 AM Matthias van de Meent < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 22 Dec 2025 at 23:04, Masahiko Sawada <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 1:28 PM Matthias van de Meent > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Here's one small patch that makes it use the visibilitymap_count() API > > > for pg_visibility_map_summary(), replacing its own bespoke counting > > > mechanism with the primary implementation that has vectorized > > > optimizations, thus reducing the overhead of > > > pg_visibility_map_summary. > > > > > > > It looks like a reasonable idea as it also simplifies the > > pg_visibility_map_summary() function. I'm going to push it, barring > > any objections. > > Obviously no objections from me, and, thanks! > > > Kind regards, > > Matthias van de Meent > Databricks (https://www.databricks.com) > > >
