| From: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: Vectorize pg_visibility.pg_visibility_map_summary |
| Date: | 2025-12-22 22:16:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAEze2Wj4x141X4s6j2jmd5eTV3jg2YKVXK49iR4C8-3p3rpyeQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Mon, 22 Dec 2025 at 23:04, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 1:28 PM Matthias van de Meent
> <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Here's one small patch that makes it use the visibilitymap_count() API
> > for pg_visibility_map_summary(), replacing its own bespoke counting
> > mechanism with the primary implementation that has vectorized
> > optimizations, thus reducing the overhead of
> > pg_visibility_map_summary.
> >
>
> It looks like a reasonable idea as it also simplifies the
> pg_visibility_map_summary() function. I'm going to push it, barring
> any objections.
Obviously no objections from me, and, thanks!
Kind regards,
Matthias van de Meent
Databricks (https://www.databricks.com)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2025-12-22 22:23:05 | Re: Why doesn't GiST VACUUM require a super-exclusive lock, like nbtree VACUUM? |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2025-12-22 22:04:05 | Re: Vectorize pg_visibility.pg_visibility_map_summary |