Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:44 AM Andrew Dunstan
<andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 04/06/2018 08:00 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> >>> On 06/04/18 01:59, Claudio Freire wrote:
> >>>> The iteration interface, however, seems quite specific for the use
> >>>> case of vacuumlazy, so it's not really a good abstraction.
> >>>
> >>> Can you elaborate? It does return the items one block at a time. Is that
> >>> what you mean by being specific for vacuumlazy? I guess that's a bit
> >>> special, but if you imagine some other users for this abstraction, it's
> >>> probably not that unusual. For example, if we started using it in bitmap
> >>> heap scans, a bitmap heap scan would also want to get the TIDs one block
> >>> number at a time.
> >> But you're also tying the caller to the format of the buffer holding
> >> those TIDs, for instance. Why would you, when you can have an
> >> interface that just iterates TIDs and let the caller store them
> >> if/however they want?
> >>
> >> I do believe a pure iterator interface is a better interface.
> > Between the b-tree or not discussion and the refactoring to separate
> > the code, I don't think we'll get this in the next 24hs.
> >
> > So I guess we'll have ample time to poner on both issues during the
> > next commit fest.
> >
>
>
>
> There doesn't seem to have been much pondering done since then, at least
> publicly. Can we make some progress on this? It's been around for a long
> time now.

Yeah, life has kept me busy and I haven't had much time to make
progress here, but I was planning on doing the refactoring as we were
discussing soon. Can't give a time frame for that, but "soonish".