From: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, rmt(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Adding skip scan (including MDAM style range skip scan) to nbtree |
Date: | 2025-08-29 08:38:39 |
Message-ID: | CAEze2WgOuQhXaW3JJE46hUhrvgg20mmAiApMcQF-iH4xp0FcrA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Thu, 22 May 2025 at 19:57, Matthias van de Meent
<boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 May 2025, 22:14 Peter Geoghegan, <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 8:58 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> > > I wonder if we can fix this problem by getting rid of the old support
> > > routine #5, "options". It currently doesn't do anything, and I always
> > > thought it was strange that it was added "for uniformity" with other
> > > index AMs.
> >
> > Attached patch completely removes the nbtree "options" support
> > function, while changing the support function number of skip support:
> > it becomes support function #5 (the number previously used by
> > "options"). This patch should fix the regression that Tomas complained
> > about in an expedient way.
> >
> > It's likely that somebody else will run into the same problem in the
> > future, the next time that a new support function is needed. But I
> > think that it makes sense to do this much now -- we need a short term
> > solution for Postgres 18.
I just realized I hadn't checked in on this in a while, and I haven't
seen Peter's patch get committed, nor my 0001. Do we consider this an
Open Item and should this be improved in PG18, or is this something
the user is expected to figure out and configure their systems for?
If we want to fix it let's make a decision before RC1, so we don't
have further breaking catalog changes between RC1 and 18.0.
cc-ed RMT as this might be Open Item-worthy, and the patches up for
debate both change catalog behaviour.
Peter's patch at [0] changes opclass procedure numbers to reuse an
existing but unused options regproc number.
My 0001 at [1] changes the memory residence status of index access
methods' handler_function output to const static, from dynamic in
memctx.
Kind regards,
Matthias van de Meent
[0] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAH2-Wzkk8k_7wj8UUhYb2%3Dq_8D%3D-c1mtwuG4PCb7j%2BSNEtD3Ew%40mail.gmail.com
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEze2Wi7tDidbDVJhu%3DPstb2hbUXDCxx_VAZnKSqbTMf7k8%2BuQ%40mail.gmail.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrey Borodin | 2025-08-29 08:39:48 | Re: [WiP] B-tree page merge during vacuum to reduce index bloat |
Previous Message | Julien Tachoires | 2025-08-29 08:38:32 | Re: Qual push down to table AM |