Re: type cache cleanup improvements

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 2:30 PM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 1:16 PM Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
> <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org> wrote:
> > Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >
> > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 8:40 AM Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 21/10/2024 06:32, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> > >> > Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > >> >
> > >> >> +static Oid *in_progress_list;
> > >> >> +static int in_progress_list_len;
> > >> >> +static int in_progress_list_maxlen;
> > >> >
> > >> > Is there any particular reason not to use pg_list.h for this?
> > >> Sure. The type cache lookup has to be as much optimal as possible.
> > >> Using an array and relating sequential access to it, we avoid memory
> > >> allocations and deallocations 99.9% of the time. Also, quick access to
> > >> the single element (which we will have in real life almost all of the
> > >> time) is much faster than employing list machinery.
> >
> > Lists are actually dynamically resized arrays these days (see commit
> > 1cff1b95ab6ddae32faa3efe0d95a820dbfdc164), not linked lists, so
> > accessing arbitrary elements is O(1), not O(n). Just like this patch,
> > the size is doubled (starting at 16) whenever array is full.
> >
> > > +1,
> > > List with zero elements has to be NIL. That means continuous
> > > allocations/deallocations.
> >
> > This however is a valid point (unless we keep a dummy zeroth element to
> > avoid it, which is even uglier than open-coding the array extension
> > logic), so objection withdrawn.
>
> OK, thank you!
>
> The attached revision fixes EXTRA_INSTALL in
> src/test/modules/typcache/Makefile. Spotted off-list by Arthur
> Zakirov.

I've re-checked that regression tests pass with
-DCLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS. Also did some grammar corrections for
comments and commit message. I'm going to push this if no objections.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase