Re: index prefetching

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Georgios <gkokolatos@protonmail.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik@garret.ru>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Date: 2025-07-16T21:47:53Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. aio: io_uring: Trigger async processing for large IOs

  2. read stream: Split decision about look ahead for AIO and combining

  3. read_stream: Only increase read-ahead distance when waiting for IO

  4. read_stream: Prevent distance from decaying too quickly

  5. Reduce ExecSeqScan* code size using pg_assume()

  6. Fix rare bug in read_stream.c's split IO handling.

  7. Fix multiranges to behave more like dependent types.

  8. Add EXPLAIN (MEMORY) to report planner memory consumption

  9. Optimize nbtree backward scan boundary cases.

  10. Increment xactCompletionCount during subtransaction abort.

  11. Add nbtree Valgrind buffer lock checks.

  12. Add nbtree high key "continuescan" optimization.

  13. Reduce pinning and buffer content locking for btree scans.

  14. Teach btree to handle ScalarArrayOpExpr quals natively.

On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 5:41 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> I don't mean the index tids, but how the read stream is fed block numbers. In
> the "complex" patch that's done by index_scan_stream_read_next(). And the
> block number it returns is simply
>
>       return ItemPointerGetBlockNumber(tid);
>
> without the table AM having any way of influencing that. Which means that if
> your table AM does not use the block number of the tid 1:1 as the real block
> number, the fetched block will be completely bogus.

How is that handled when such a table AM uses the existing amgettuple
interface? I think that it shouldn't be hard to implement an opt-out
of prefetching for such table AMs, so at least you won't fetch random
garbage.

Right now, the amgetbatch interface is oriented around returning TIDs.
Obviously it works that way because that's what heapam expects, and
what amgettuple (which I'd like to replace with amgetbatch) does.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan