On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Nikolay Shaplov
<n.shap...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> В письме от 10 сентября 2015 15:46:25 пользователь Michael Paquier написал:
>> > So if move tuple data parsing into separate function, then we have to pass
>> > these values alongside the tuple data. This is not convenient at all.
>> > So I did it in a way you see in the patch.
>> Why is it not convenient at all? Yes, you have a point, we need those
>> fields to be able to parse the t_data properly. Still the possibility
>> to show individual fields of a tuple as a bytea array either with
>> toasted or detoasted values is a concept completely different from
>> simply showing the page items, which is what, it seems to me,
>> heap_page_items is aimed to only do. Hence, As t_infomask2, t_infomask
>> and t_bits are already available as return fields of heap_page_items,
>> we should simply add a function like that:
>> heap_page_item_parse(Oid relid, bytea data, t_infomask2 int,
>> t_infomask int, t_bits int, bool force_detoast, warning_mode bool)
>> returns bytea[]
> Just compare two expressions:
> select * from heap_page_item_attrs(get_raw_page('test', 0),'test'::regclass);
> and
> select  lp, lp_off, lp_flags, lp_len, t_xmin, t_xmax, t_field3, t_ctid,
> t_infomask2, t_infomask, t_hoff, t_bits, t_oid,  tuple_data_parse (
> t_data,  t_infomask, t_infomask2, t_bits, 'test'::regclass, true, false)
> from heap_page_item_attrs(get_raw_page('test', 0));
> The second variant is a total mess and almost unsable...

It is hard to believe as well that any sane application would use * as
well in a SELECT query. Users would though and we are talking about
user's education here :)

> Though I've discussed this issue with friedns, and we came to conclusion that
> it might be good to implement tuple_data_parse and then implement
> easy to use heap_page_item_attrs in pure SQL, using heap_page_items and
> tuple_data_parse.
> That would keep usage simplicity, and make code more simple as you offer.

Yep. That's doable with a simple SQL function. I am not sure that it
is worth including in pageinspect though.

> The only one argument against it is that in internal representation t_bits is
> binary, and in sql output it is string with '0' and '1' characters. We will
> have to convert it back to binary mode. This is not difficult, but just 
> useless
> convertations there and back again.

The reason why this is visibly converted from bit to text is that the
in-core bit data type has a fixed length, and in the case of
HeapTupleHeaderData there is a variable length.

> What do you think about this solution?

For code simplicity's sake this seems worth the cost.

>> Note that the data corruption checks apply only to this function as
>> far as I understand, so I think that things could be actually split
>> into two independent patches:
>> 1) Upgrade heap_page_items to add the tuple data as bytea.
>> 2) Add the new function able to parse those fields appropriately.
>> As this code, as you justly mentioned, is aimed mainly for educational
>> purposes to understand a page structure, we should definitely make it
>> as simple as possible at code level, and it seems to me that this
>> comes with a separate SQL interface to control tuple data parsing as a
>> bytea[]. We are doing no favor to our users to complicate the code of
>> pageinspect.c as this patch is doing in its current state, especially
>> if beginners want to have a look at it.
>> >> Actually not two functions, but just one, with an extra flag to be
>> >> able to enforce detoasting on the field values where this can be done.
>> >
>> > Yeah, I also thought about it. But did not come to any final conclusion.
>> > Should we add forth argument, that enables detoasting, instead of adding
>> > separate function?
>> This is definitely something you want to control with a switch.
> Ok.Let's come to the final decision with tuple_data_parse, and i will add this
> switch there and to pure sql heap_page_item_attrs

Fine for me.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to