Re: CF entries for 17 to be reviewed

From: "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CF entries for 17 to be reviewed
Date: 2024-03-06 13:49:48
Message-ID: 2AFAACF9-27F2-4433-B62D-DC825DD7BA11@yandex-team.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 4 Mar 2024, at 14:51, Andrey M. Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> wrote:
>
> I’ve read other small sections.

Here are statuses for "Refactoring" section:
* New [relation] options engine
Relatively heavy refactoring. Author keeps interest to the patch for some years now. As I understood the main problem is that big refactoring cannot be split into incremental steps. Definitely worth reviewing, but I think not for 17 already...
* Confine vacuum skip logic to lazy_scan_skip
There was a discussion at the end of 2023, but no recent review activity. Author actively improves the patchset.
* Change prefetch and read strategies to use range in pg_prewarm
Some discussion is happening. Changed to WoA to reflect actual status.
* Potential issue in ecpg-informix decimal converting functions
On Daniel's TODO list.
* BitmapHeapScan table AM violation removal (and use streaming read API)
Active discussion with reviewers is going on.
* Streaming read sequential and TID range scan
Seems like discussion on this patch is going on in nearby threads. In this thread I observe only improved patch versions posted.

All in all "Refactoring" section seemed to me more complex and demanding in-depth knowledge. It's difficult to judge why new approaches are an improvement. So for newcomer reviewers I'd recommend to look to other sections.

Thanks.

Best regards, Andrey Borodin.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bharath Rupireddy 2024-03-06 14:02:28 Re: Add new error_action COPY ON_ERROR "log"
Previous Message Laurenz Albe 2024-03-06 13:32:06 Re: Wrong security context for deferred triggers?