Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum

On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 9:34 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> BTW cfbot reported that some regression tests failed due to OOM. I've
> attached the patch to fix it.

Seems worth doing now rather than later, so added this and squashed most of
the rest together. I wonder if that test uses too much memory in general.
Maybe using the full uint64 is too much.

> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 8:05 PM John Naylor
> <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

> > This is possibly faster than v38-0010, but looking like not worth the
complexity, assuming the other way avoids the bug going forward.
>
> I prefer 0010 but is it worth testing with other compilers such as clang?

Okay, keeping 0010 with a comment, and leaving out 0011 for now. Clang is
aggressive about unrolling loops, so may be worth looking globally at some
point.

> > v38-0012-Use-branch-free-coding-to-skip-new-element-index.patch

> > Within noise level of v38-0011, but it's small and simple, so I like
it, at least for small arrays.
>
> Agreed.

Keeping 0012 and not 0013.

--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com