Re: predefined role(s) for VACUUM and ANALYZE

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: predefined role(s) for VACUUM and ANALYZE
Date: 2022-12-06 19:51:08
Message-ID: 20221206195108.GD3078082@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 11:47:50AM +0000, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> These checks are getting rather repetitive, how about a data-driven
> approach, along the lines of the below patch? I'm not quite happy with
> the naming of the struct and its members (and maybe it should be in a
> header?), suggestions welcome.

+1. I wonder if we should also consider checking all the bits at once
before we start checking for the predefined roles. I'm thinking of
something a bit like this:


if (mask & role_mask != result & role_mask)
... existing checks here ...

I'm skeptical this actually produces any measurable benefit, but presumably
the predefined roles list will continue to grow, so maybe it's still worth
adding a fast path.

Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services:

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2022-12-06 20:18:42 Re: Temporary tables versus wraparound... again
Previous Message Greg Stark 2022-12-06 19:50:34 Re: Temporary tables versus wraparound... again