| From: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Madhav Madhusoodanan <madhavmadhusoodanan(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kirk Wolak <wolakk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Nikolay Samokhvalov <nik(at)postgres(dot)ai> |
| Subject: | Re: [WiP] B-tree page merge during vacuum to reduce index bloat |
| Date: | 2026-02-27 10:58:21 |
| Message-ID: | D95C9D6F-62A4-446D-B9A9-EF17FF786351@yandex-team.ru |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 27 Feb 2026, at 14:54, Madhav Madhusoodanan <madhavmadhusoodanan(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> On a related note, I noticed the same topic on the 2026 projects list
> in the Google Summer of Code page. It mentions that a prototype
> extension (pg_btree_compact) has been developed. How do I access the
> same?
Hi Madhav!
It's available here [0], it's only a prototype.
But the approach with AccessExclusiveLock is not practically useful.
Just REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY will do better in most cases.
We have to develop locking and pining protocols that:
1. Allow both Forward and Backward scans
2. Have indistinguishable locking and pining effect on index
Perhaps, I agree with Pavlo that it seems overly rigorous for GSoC.
It's more like math research than code typing.
Thanks for your interest!
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2026-02-27 11:07:28 | Re: [PATCH] Support automatic sequence replication |
| Previous Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2026-02-27 10:48:08 | Re: Portable StaticAssertExpr |