From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: error context for vacuum to include block number |
Date: | 2019-12-15 16:27:12 |
Message-ID: | 20191215162712.GZ2082@telsasoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 10:07:08PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 04:47:35PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > It's related code which I cleaned up before adding new stuff. Not essential,
> > thus separate (0002 should be backpatched).
>
> The issue just causes some extra work and that's not a bug, so applied
> without a backpatch.
Thanks
> For 0003, I think that lazy_vacuum_heap_index() can be confusing as
> those indexes are unrelated to heap. Why not naming it just
> lazy_vacuum_all_indexes()? The routine should also have a header
> describing it.
I named it so because it calls both lazy_vacuum_index
("PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE_VACUUM_INDEX") and
lazy_vacuum_heap("PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE_VACUUM_HEAP")
I suppose you don't think the other way around is better?
lazy_vacuum_index_heap
Justin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Zubiri | 2019-12-15 18:11:18 | Improvement to psql's connection defaults |
Previous Message | Utsav Parmar | 2019-12-15 16:26:32 | Request to be allotted a project or a feature in pipeline |