| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> |
| Subject: | Re: Avoiding superfluous buffer locking during nbtree backwards scans |
| Date: | 2024-10-16 18:02:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkdKYwzFri_7BGDVT2VSD_jNNazr+gDgK-c_iw1Sza=2w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 7:29 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> Attached is v5
Now I'm attaching a v6, which further polishes things. Current plan is to
commit something very close to this in the next day or two.
v6 is mostly just further comment polishing. But it also merges together
the two existing _bt_readnextpage loops (for forward and backward scan
directions) into one single loop that handles everything. This is
definitely a win for brevity, and might also be a win for clarity --
but I'm not 100% sure which way I prefer it just yet.
I'll need to make a final decision on this loop merging business
before committing. Anybody else have an opinion, either way?
--
Peter Geoghegan
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v6-0001-Optimize-and-simplify-nbtree-backwards-scans.patch | application/x-patch | 46.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shubham Khanna | 2024-10-16 18:02:51 | Re: Pgoutput not capturing the generated columns |
| Previous Message | Shubham Khanna | 2024-10-16 18:01:57 | Re: Pgoutput not capturing the generated columns |