Horton

Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Юрий Соколов <funny.falcon@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Sokolov Yura <funny.falcon@postgrespro.ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-11-28T23:00:04Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> Maybe it's a stupid question. But would we still want to have this after
> the change? These should be just specializations of the template version
> imo.

I also wonder why regression test output has changed. Wasn't this
supposed to be a mechanical change in how the templating is
implemented? Why would the behavior of the algorithm change, even if
the change is only a change in the output order among equal elements?

Also, is that one last raw CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() in the template
definition supposed to be there?

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Commits

  1. Avoid looping through line pointers twice in PageRepairFragmentation().

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

  3. Speed up in-memory tuplesorting.