Re: Streaming read-ready sequential scan code

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: Streaming read-ready sequential scan code
Date: 2024-04-04 21:00:51
Message-ID: CA+hUKG+q=sg+ifx5NRfBdX_EBAeoJC1fSuaYeQXLCYbN-7nKig@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 4:20 AM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> So, sequential scan does not have per-buffer data. I did some logging
> and the reason most fully-in-SB sequential scans don't use the fast
> path is because read_stream->pending_read_nblocks is always 0.

Hnghghghgh... right, sorry I guessed the wrong reason, it turns out
that I made a fast path just a little too specialised for pg_prewarm.
Working on it...

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2024-04-04 21:01:12 Re: Security lessons from liblzma
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2024-04-04 20:56:01 Re: Security lessons from liblzma