public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]>
To: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Alexandre Felipe <[email protected]>
Cc: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
Cc: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Georgios <[email protected]>
Cc: Konstantin Knizhnik <[email protected]>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: index prefetching
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 13:27:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CAH2-Wz=Qv3wmhPnryeC_TsiETP9H=btQgssSRffzJW3XmyNNXw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CAE8JnxN_EwnTLLMWGhvgwaomYZ0ysm7NeogA-BqBd=Rs3S7Oqw@mail.gmail.com>
<64a2re223ajj4popowsyu4xekbuvvyfwkrihn5yzyrkwsmsuvp@2lls3tpww5dl>
<a67mvhyi2q45eg4eimhpwdg6l3s3dmpahti2svffvmvzwmss27@r4nohusvndbq>
<[email protected]>
<il7jtfowpatrlg33qb5plj7v7pferes4ogerq5fdczszi4kokh@sbwvb2ukfgos>
<[email protected]>
<ws47e3wly6skt36b23zy5qfvcxzueo6od3uicunuodsqnxl7os@7v2qi7qkxzbz>
<CAH2-Wzk-89uCvdJ1Q6NsM6LvDvUEt6Qy66T6A60J=D_voWxZDg@mail.gmail.com>
<64mfcfv7iihc4pmqlxarii4esnmqry52ckz5m7lmwylnfnuxuz@oxh4ioxkjtep>
<CAH2-Wzmy7NMba9k8m_VZ-XNDZJEUQBU8TeLEeL960-rAKb-+tQ@mail.gmail.com>
<d2d4qofb5ajg2ftvm6h56oi4utdwpzkqfjd7z2y4vod5qaub4h@ixyotvfut3mg>
<CAH2-Wz=g=JTSyDB4UtB5su2ZcvsS7VbP+ZMvvaG6ABoCb+s8Lw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 10:43 AM Tomas Vondra <[email protected]> wrote:
> I took a quick look at 0001 and 0002 patches, and I think it's mostly
> ready to go.
Pushed both patches just now. Thanks for the review!
> I only have a couple very minor comments:
>
> 1) v12-0001-Use-simple-hash-for-PrivateRefCount.patch
> - the "common/hashfn.h" include seems in the wrong place
Fixed in the pushed patch.
> 2) v12-0002-Don-t-allocate-_bt_search-stack.patch
>
> - seems like a reasonable optimization for most callers
> - _bt_search could set "stack_in = new_stack;" in the first if block, I
> think it's nicer
Agreed. Done that way in the commit that I pushed.
> - My only concern is that _bt_search is part of the public API (at least
> technically, as it's in nbtree.h), and we're removing _bt_freestack()
> from the API so the callers won't have a convenient way to free it.
> Maybe that's not an issue in practice, because doing a local version of
> freestack is easy.
I don't think that it's an issue. _bt_search is very much an
nbtree-internal function (amcheck notwithstanding), and as you point
out it's easy enough for an extension to create its own version of
_bt_freestack in the unlikely event that it needs to.
--
Peter Geoghegan
view thread (367+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: index prefetching
In-Reply-To: <CAH2-Wz=Qv3wmhPnryeC_TsiETP9H=btQgssSRffzJW3XmyNNXw@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox