Re: [WIP]Vertical Clustered Index (columnar store extension) - take2

Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>

From: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>

To: Timur Magomedov <t.magomedov@postgrespro.ru>

Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>, "Aya Iwata (Fujitsu)" <iwata.aya@fujitsu.com>, "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>

Date: 2025-05-30T01:38:20Z

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 →

Mark ItemPointer arguments as const throughout
- e1ac846f3d28 19 (unreleased) cited
Reorganize GUC structs
- a13833c35f9e 19 (unreleased) cited
Eliminate XLOG_HEAP2_VISIBLE from vacuum phase III
- add323da40a6 19 (unreleased) cited
Update various forward declarations to use typedef
- d4d1fc527bdb 19 (unreleased) cited
Pathify RHS unique-ification for semijoin planning
- 24225ad9aafc 19 (unreleased) cited
Revert "Don't lock partitions pruned by initial pruning"
- 1722d5eb05d8 18.0 cited
For inplace update, send nontransactional invalidations.
- 243e9b40f1b2 18.0 cited
Remove nearly-unused SizeOfIptrData macro.
- 8023b5827fba 10.0 cited

Hi Timur.

On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 11:30 PM Timur Magomedov
<t.magomedov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
> I've noticed there are changes in Postgres code v4 patch that rollback
> the commit [1]. That commit optimizes TupleHashEntryData struct size
> and amount of memory allocations which improves performance (see
> discussion [2]).
> Can we use leave TupleHashEntryData as is and make new VCI-specific
> struct that contains TupleHashEntryData member and an additional
> pointer or make VCI use TupleHashEntryGetAdditional()?
>
> [1]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/attachment/174581/v9-0004-Remove-additional-pointer-from-TupleHashEntryData.patch
> [2]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/817d244237878cebdff0bc363718feaf49a1ea7d.camel%40j-davis.com

Thank you for noticing and reporting this!

It was not intentional to roll back changes to core PostgreSQL. These
VCI patches originated from an older forked source, so it seems this
reversion was inadvertently introduced during the rebasing process.

We’ll aim to correct this in a future patch.

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia