| From: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Re: eliminate xl_heap_visible to reduce WAL (and eventually set VM on-access) |
| Date: | 2026-01-06 09:40:03 |
| Message-ID: | 4379FDA3-9446-4E2C-9C15-32EFE8D4F31B@yandex-team.ru |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 6 Jan 2026, at 00:24, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> <v32-0014-Pass-down-information-on-table-modification-to-s.patch>
I've tried to take an attempt to review some patches of this patchset. It's huge and mostly polished.
In a step "Pass down information on table modification to scan node" you pass SO_HINT_REL_READ_ONLY flag in IndexNext() and BitmapTableScanSetup(), but not in IndexNextWithReorder() and IndexOnlyNext(). Is there a reason why index scans with ordering cannot use on-access VM setting?
Also, comment about visibilitymap_set() says "Callers that log VM changes separately should use visibilitymap_set()" as if visibilitymap_set() is some other function.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Japin Li | 2026-01-06 10:16:02 | Remove deprecated role membership options from psql help for CREATE USER/GROUP |
| Previous Message | Nitin Motiani | 2026-01-06 09:35:36 | Re: Proposal: Support Logical replication of large objects |