Feedback-ID: id4a34324:Fastmail
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2026 01:33:32 -0400
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>,
	Alexandre Felipe <o.alexandre.felipe@gmail.com>,
 Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
	Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
	Georgios <gkokolatos@protonmail.com>,
 Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik@garret.ru>,
	Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: index prefetching
Message-ID: <e6avgxqkonquofdstnvt5zq72x6zmolz5vojshk2b3ptsksdmw@2mf4bmp4pank>
References: <t6mtqbv2mbfhjni4bvwdgoecppjmxvbyfwl6utovzv76xc2672@k3o5ryevaeqv>
 <CAH2-Wz=D4Lru9BkvqaRnFRPDaZbfTOdWcxw13zyG6GVFTtz_vw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH2-Wz=Vxsgas35ZzOJJW1ceqp9TJ2DFhKmXULwUAcVpfD73xA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH2-Wz=kMg3PNay96cHMT0LFwtxP-cQSRZTZzh1Cixxf8G=zrw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH2-WzkFRoTjD9T8ykYDzOMxzGiWFqcAkbK8B=HjfpoMdM4E8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <chsvntdxvsiyigxq4nng36gne4natvxwvsqnkvbjlpaw6bu7co@a6togdo4wbrj>
 <CAH2-Wz=nz-zr=gaXL1od_F7dcr=7d+3jEEveqY-bgcAKF6wZJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH2-Wz=t3G53xKGYEWqm_QV35ExRgT2k=qhw_VHe5oGjdFRwtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH2-WzkiCK=wELiXPgriN4r7cJzGb3Xg48E9YHrFEyEPTkynOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <s25f6opuqwmz7oad467twvgxc36zmgzguhph43z4sbfkflsjnq@r6cuj7cl36lg>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <s25f6opuqwmz7oad467twvgxc36zmgzguhph43z4sbfkflsjnq@r6cuj7cl36lg>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e6avgxqkonquofdstnvt5zq72x6zmolz5vojshk2b3ptsksdmw%402mf4bmp4pank>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 2026-04-04 01:21:53 -0400, Andres Freund wrote:

> > +StaticAssertDecl(INDEX_SCAN_MAX_BATCHES <= PG_UINT8_MAX + 1,
> > +				 "INDEX_SCAN_MAX_BATCHES must fit in uint8 ring buffer indexes");
> 
> I'd just use a < without the + 1 on the other side :)

Actually, I think there are actual issues around this. Once you set
INDEX_SCAN_MAX_BATCHES to 256, there are a lot of, justified looking,
warnings.

[1/1 1 100%] Compiling C object src/backend/postgres_lib.a.p/access_heap_heapam_handler.c.o
In file included from ../../../../../home/andres/src/postgresql/src/include/access/heapam.h:19,
                 from ../../../../../home/andres/src/postgresql/src/backend/access/heap/heapam_handler.c:23:
../../../../../home/andres/src/postgresql/src/include/access/relscan.h: In function 'index_scan_batch_full':
../../../../../home/andres/src/postgresql/src/include/access/relscan.h:488:45: warning: comparison is always false due to limited range of data type [-Wtype-limits]
  488 |         return index_scan_batch_count(scan) == INDEX_SCAN_MAX_BATCHES;
      |                                             ^~


I'm also not sure this is actually quite right

/*
 * Do we already have a batch loaded at 'idx' offset in scan's ring buffer?
 *
 * NOTE: a stale batch idx can alias a currently-loaded range after uint8
 * overflow, producing a false positive.  False negatives are not possible.
 */
static inline bool
index_scan_batch_loaded(IndexScanDescData *scan, uint8 idx)
{
	return (int8) (idx - scan->batchringbuf.headBatch) >= 0 &&
		(int8) (idx - scan->batchringbuf.nextBatch) < 0;
}

once the differences between the values don't fit into an int8 anymore. But
I'm tired.

Greetings,

Andres Freund