Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum

From: John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Date: 2024-03-06 11:25:21
Message-ID: CANWCAZZWT80LwkFFp49Y1dUgdW6f6bowSDXLY4=8WM00Q-oCGg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Actually, I forgot -- I had one more question: Masahiko, is there a
reason for this extra local variable, which uses the base type, rather
than the typedef'd parameter?

+RT_SCOPE RT_RADIX_TREE *
+RT_ATTACH(dsa_area *dsa, RT_HANDLE handle)
+{
+ RT_RADIX_TREE *tree;
+ dsa_pointer control;
+
+ tree = (RT_RADIX_TREE *) palloc0(sizeof(RT_RADIX_TREE));
+
+ /* Find the control object in shared memory */
+ control = handle;

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2024-03-06 11:29:18 Re: Potential stack overflow in incremental base backup
Previous Message vignesh C 2024-03-06 11:24:06 Re: speed up a logical replica setup