Re: Tid scan improvements

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Edmund Horner <ejrh00(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Tid scan improvements
Date: 2019-03-25 21:52:11
Message-ID: 20190325215211.bhwf35lihihfdx5w@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2019-03-18 22:35:05 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> The commit message in 8586bf7ed mentions:
>
> > Subsequent commits will incrementally abstract table access
> > functionality to be routed through table access methods. That change
> > is too large to be reviewed & committed at once, so it'll be done
> > incrementally.
>
> and looking at [1] I see patch 0004 introduces some changes in
> nodeTidscan.c to call a new tableam API function named
> heapam_fetch_row_version. I see this function does have a ItemPointer
> argument, so I guess we must be keeping those as unique row
> identifiers in the API.

Right, we are. At least for now - there's some discussions around
allowing different format for TIDs, to allow things like index organized
tables, but that's for later.

> Patch 0001 does change the signature of heap_setscanlimits() (appears
> to be committed already), and then in 0010 the only code that calls
> heap_setscanlimits() (IndexBuildHeapRangeScan()) is moved and renamed
> to heapam_index_build_range_scan() and set to be called via the
> index_build_range_scan TableAmRoutine method. So it looks like out of
> that patch series nothing is there to allow you to access
> heap_setscanlimits() directly via the TableAmRoutine API, so perhaps
> for this to work heap_setscanlimits will need to be interfaced,
> however, I'm unsure if that'll violate any assumptions that Andres
> wants to keep out of the API...

I was kinda hoping to keep block numbers out of the "main" APIs, to
avoid assuming everything is BLCKSZ based. I don't have a particular
problem allowing an optional setscanlimits type callback that works with
block numbers. The planner could check its presence and just not build
tid range scans if not present. Alternatively a bespoke scan API for
tid range scans, like the later patches in the tableam series for
bitmap, sample, analyze scans, might be an option.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-03-25 21:57:50 Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb
Previous Message Andres Freund 2019-03-25 21:48:35 Re: Tid scan improvements