Re: More vacuum.c refactoring

Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> writes:
> I understand you, honestly. Do I read between your lines that you
> didn't review my previous vacuum.c refactoring patch? Please do. It'd
> make *me* more comfortable.

I did not yet, but I will get to it. I encourage everyone else to
take a look too. I agree with Alvaro that fooling with this code
merits extreme caution.

BTW, I do not at all mean to suggest that vacuum.c contains no bugs
at the moment ;-). I suspect for example that it is a bit random
about whether MOVED_OFF/MOVED_IN bits get cleared immediately, or
only by the next transaction that chances to visit the tuple. The
next-transaction-fixup behavior has to be there in case the VACUUM
transaction crashes, but that doesn't mean that VACUUM should
deliberately leave work undone.

> I see three significant differences between the code in repair_frag()
> and vacuum_page().

Will study these comments later, but it's too late at night here...
again, the more eyeballs on this the better...

regards, tom lane