| From: | Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Chen <carpenter(dot)nail(dot)cz(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Optimize SnapBuildPurgeOlderTxn: use in-place compaction instead of temporary array |
| Date: | 2026-01-08 15:54:35 |
| Message-ID: | CABPTF7UKaXP+1-jMg7yXWrj+C07ZvDitDpLF6UeCQUAFGO4nYw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Neil,
On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 4:49 PM Neil Chen <carpenter(dot)nail(dot)cz(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi Xuneng,
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 4:15 PM Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> v3-0001 fixes a critical issue where the snapshot->xip array in
>> SnapBuildBuildSnapshot might not be sorted before reaching the
>> consistent state. Sorry for the noise here.
>>
>
> I’ve given this patch a cursory review, and it looks good overall.
> Considering the impact of this change, should we add a regression test for it, or provide a unit test to ensure the correctness of the modification?
> I think it would be more receptive to merging such a "subtle performance optimization" only when its correctness is fully guaranteed.
Thanks for your review. I think we can add a tap test for it.
--
Best,
Xuneng
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2026-01-08 16:02:31 | Re: [BUG] CRASH: ECPGprepared_statement() and ECPGdeallocate_all() when connection is NULL |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2026-01-08 15:42:09 | Re: Proposal: SELECT * EXCLUDE (...) command |