| From: | Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Odd code around ginScanToDelete |
| Date: | 2026-03-10 09:28:53 |
| Message-ID: | CALT9ZEGsc3oSqtaHtevz5=SZaooW6hPP8ZwNEZCSEw2kePaHvQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, Xuneng
> > Is it worth/possible in recursive calls of ginScanToDelete() to free
> > allocated myStackItem->child after processing all children of the
> > current level, when they are not needed anymore?
> > Previously to this patch, palloc-ed "me" variable also was't freed at
> > recursion levels.
>
> Freeing/reallocating it per subtree would add churn and make the
> lifetime rules harder to reason about without meaningful memory
> savings (the number of nodes is bounded by tree depth, not number of
> pages). We currently free the chain once after ginScanToDelete()
> returns in ginVacuumPostingTree(), which matches the natural lifetime
> boundary
I proposed not freeing child when child iteration is complete. They
indeed can be reused. I proposed cleaning children when "my" iteration
is complete. At that time all the children iterations are completed
and not needed when we return level up.
Regards,
Pavel Borisov
Supabase
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kirill Reshke | 2026-03-10 09:53:41 | Re: domain for WITHOUT OVERLAPS |
| Previous Message | Kirill Reshke | 2026-03-10 09:25:10 | Re: Add missing CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS calls in dblink module |