On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 4:28 PM Jim Nasby <jim.na...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/12/24 12:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > P.P.S. to everyone: Yikes, this logic is really confusing. > > Having studied all this code several years ago when it was even simpler > - it was *still* very hard to grok even back then. I *greatly > appreciate* the effort that y'all are putting into increasing the > clarity here.
Thanks. And yeah, I agree. > BTW, back in the day the whole "no indexes" optimization was a really > tiny amount of code... I think it amounted to 2 or 3 if statements. I > haven't yet attempted to grok this patchset, but I'm definitely > wondering how much it's worth continuing to optimize that case. Clearly > it'd be very expensive to memoize dead tuples just to trawl that list a > single time to clean the heap, but outside of that I'm not sure other > optimazations are worth it given the amount of code > complexity/duplication they seem to require - especially for code where > correctness is so crucial. Personally, I don't think throwing away that optimization is the way to go. The idea isn't intrinsically complicated, I believe. It's just that the code has become messy because of too many hands touching it. At least, that's my read. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
