If I understand the fundamental design of TOAST correctly, it's not
allowed to have multiple heap tuples containing pointers to the same
moved-off TOAST item.  For example, if one tuple has such a pointer,
and we copy it with INSERT ... SELECT, then the new tuple has to be
constructed with its own copy of the moved-off item.  Without this
you'd need reference counts and so forth for moved-off values.

It looks like you have logic for all this in tuptoaster.c, but
I see a flaw: the code doesn't look inside array fields to see if
any of the array elements are pre-toasted values.  There could be
a moved-off-item pointer inside an array, copied from some other
place.

Note the fact that arrays aren't yet considered toastable is
no defense.  An array of a toastable data type is sufficient
to create the risk.

What do you want to do about this?  We could have heap_tuple_toast_attrs
scan through all the elements of arrays of toastable types, but that
strikes me as slow.  I'm thinking the best approach is for the array
construction routines to refuse to insert toasted values into array
objects in the first place --- instead, expand them before insertion.
Then the whole array could be treated as a toastable object, but there
are no references inside the array to worry about.

If we do that, should compressed-in-place array items be expanded back
to full size before insertion in the array?  If we don't, we'd likely
end up trying to compress already-compressed data, which is a waste of
effort ... but OTOH it seems a shame to force the data back to full
size unnecessarily.  Either way would work, I'm just not sure which
is likely to be more efficient.

			regards, tom lane

Mon, 17 Jul 2000 19:14:58 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
TOAST vs arrays
Tom Lane wrote:
> If I understand the fundamental design of TOAST correctly, it's not
> allowed to have multiple heap tuples containing pointers to the same
> moved-off TOAST item.  For example, if one tuple has such a pointer,
> and we copy it with INSERT ... SELECT, then the new tuple has to be
> constructed with its own copy of the moved-off item.  Without this
> you'd need reference counts and so forth for moved-off values.
>
> It looks like you have logic for all this in tuptoaster.c, but
> I see a flaw: the code doesn't look inside array fields to see if
> any of the array elements are pre-toasted values.  There could be
> a moved-off-item pointer inside an array, copied from some other
> place.
>
> Note the fact that arrays aren't yet considered toastable is
> no defense.  An array of a toastable data type is sufficient
> to create the risk.

    Yepp

> What do you want to do about this?  We could have heap_tuple_toast_attrs
> scan through all the elements of arrays of toastable types, but that
> strikes me as slow.  I'm thinking the best approach is for the array
> construction routines to refuse to insert toasted values into array
> objects in the first place --- instead, expand them before insertion.
> Then the whole array could be treated as a toastable object, but there
> are no references inside the array to worry about.

    I think the array construction routines is the right place to
    expand them.

> If we do that, should compressed-in-place array items be expanded back
> to full size before insertion in the array?  If we don't, we'd likely
> end up trying to compress already-compressed data, which is a waste of
> effort ... but OTOH it seems a shame to force the data back to full
> size unnecessarily.  Either way would work, I'm just not sure which
> is likely to be more efficient.

    I think it's not too bad to expand  them  and  then  let  the
    toaster  (eventually) compress the entire array again. Larger
    data usually yields better  compression  results.  Given  the
    actual  speed  of  our  compression  code,  I  don't expect a
    performance penalty from it.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #



Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:58:32 +0200 (MEST)
JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck)
Re: TOAST vs arrays
JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck) writes:
>> What do you want to do about this?  We could have heap_tuple_toast_attrs
>> scan through all the elements of arrays of toastable types, but that
>> strikes me as slow.  I'm thinking the best approach is for the array
>> construction routines to refuse to insert toasted values into array
>> objects in the first place --- instead, expand them before insertion.
>> Then the whole array could be treated as a toastable object, but there
>> are no references inside the array to worry about.

>     I think the array construction routines is the right place to
>     expand them.

Sounds like a plan.

Just in case anyone wants to object: I'm planning to rip out all of
the "large object array" and "chunked array" support that's in there
now.  AFAICS it does nothing that won't be done as well or better by
toasted arrays, and it probably doesn't work anyway (seeing that much
of it has been ifdef'd out for a long time).

			regards, tom lane

Tue, 18 Jul 2000 10:43:47 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: TOAST vs arrays 