Horton

Re: Remove custom redundant full page write description from GIN

Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com>
To: Arseniy Mukhin <arseniy.mukhin.dev@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-10-13T20:59:19Z
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. Improve description of some WAL records for GIN

  2. Add comment in ginxlog.h about block used with ginxlogInsertListPage

  3. Remove block information from description of some WAL records for GIN

  4. Remove useless pointer update in ginxlog.c

On Tue, 14 Oct 2025, 01:24 Arseniy Mukhin, <arseniy.mukhin.dev@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 10:00 PM Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 9 Oct 2025, at 17:33, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Should we remove them, reducing overall cognitive complexity of GIN
> > > internals and reducing WAL footprint?
> >
> > The patch does not add a single line... that's impressive :)
> >
> > Why not wipe ginxlogSplit entirely? Will the code be clearer with
> XLogRegisterData(&flags, sizeof(uint16))?
> >
> >
>
> Looks like we will not be able to process old split records after
> this, as 'flags' field offset was changed. So probably these fields
> are for backward compatibility. Does it make sense?
>
>
> Best regards,
> Arseniy Mukhin
>

Hi! We do not need to support anything WAL related in new major version,
since we do new initdb. There are couple of threads nearby that change WAL
record layout or even drop them entirely, and that OK.
Also, we have WAL magic number for this purpose

>