Re: Lowering the ever-growing heap->pd_lower

From: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Lowering the ever-growing heap->pd_lower
Date: 2022-02-16 20:14:16
Message-ID: CAEze2Wg2PdCGoZJsj_dsOEoqMCwKOfb4_Q71wxB0ivoD8pyZzQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 at 20:54, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:48 AM Matthias van de Meent
> <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Peter Geoghegan asked for good arguments for the two changes
> > implemented. Below are my arguments detailed, with adversarial loads
> > that show the problematic behaviour of the line pointer array that is
> > fixed with the patch.
>
> Why is it okay that lazy_scan_prune() still calls
> PageGetMaxOffsetNumber() once for the page, before it ever calls
> heap_page_prune()? Won't lazy_scan_prune() need to reestablish maxoff
> now, if only so that its scan-page-items loop doesn't get confused
> when it goes on to read "former line pointers"? This is certainly
> possible with the CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY stuff in place (which will
> memset the truncated line pointer space with a 0x7F7F7F7F pattern).

Good catch, it is not. Attached a version that re-establishes maxoff
after each prune operation.

-Matthias

Attachment Content-Type Size
v8-0001-Improve-application-of-line-pointer-array-truncat.patch application/octet-stream 5.5 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2022-02-16 20:17:10 Re: check-world has suddenly started spewing stuff on stderr
Previous Message Robert Haas 2022-02-16 20:11:56 Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum?