Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Pavan Deolasee
> <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>   For such an heap insert, we will pass
>>> the actual value of column to index_form_tuple during index insert.
>>> However during recheck when we fetch the value of c2 from heap tuple
>>> and pass it index tuple, the value is already in compressed form and
>>> index_form_tuple might again try to compress it because the size will
>>> still be greater than TOAST_INDEX_TARGET and if it does so, it might
>>> make recheck fail.
>>>
>>
>> Would it? I thought  "if
>> (!VARATT_IS_EXTENDED(DatumGetPointer(untoasted_values[i]))" check should
>> prevent that. But I could be reading those macros wrong. They are probably
>> heavily uncommented and it's not clear what each of those VARATT_* macro do.
>>
>
> That won't handle the case where it is simply compressed.  You need
> check like VARATT_IS_COMPRESSED to take care of compressed heap
> tuples, but then also it won't work because heap_tuple_fetch_attr()
> doesn't handle compressed tuples.  You need to use
> heap_tuple_untoast_attr() to handle the compressed case.  Also, we
> probably need to handle other type of var attrs.  Now, If we want to
> do all of that index_form_tuple()  might not be the right place, we
> probably want to handle it in caller or provide an alternate API.
>

Another related, index_form_tuple() has a check for VARATT_IS_EXTERNAL
not VARATT_IS_EXTENDED, so may be that is cause of confusion for you,
but as I mentioned even if you change the check heap_tuple_fetch_attr
won't suffice the need.




-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com