Re: Combine Prune and Freeze records emitted by vacuum

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 03:15:49PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> 0009-: The rest of the v4 patches, rebased over the WAL format changes. I
> also added a few small commits for little cleanups that caught my eye, let
> me know if you disagree with those.

This review is just of the patches containing changes you made in
0009-0026.

> From d36138b5bf0a93557273b5e47f8cd5ea089057c7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)iki(dot)fi>
> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:47:42 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH v5 13/26] still use a local 'cutoffs' variable
>
> Given how often 'cutoffs' is used in the function, I think it still
> makes sense to have a local variable for it, just to keep the source
> lines shorter.

Works for me.

> From 913617ed98cfddd678a6f620db7dee68d1d61c89 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)iki(dot)fi>
> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:51:13 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH v5 21/26] move whole_page_freezable to tighter scope

Works for me.

> From e2b50f9b64f7e4255f4f764e2a348e1b446573dc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)iki(dot)fi>
> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:43:31 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH v5 22/26] make 'all_visible_except_removable' local
>
> The caller doesn't need it, so it doesn't belong in PruneFreezeResult

Makes sense to me.

> From e993e0d98cd0ef1ecbd229f6ddbe23d59a427e3a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)iki(dot)fi>
> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:40:34 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH v5 26/26] reorder PruneFreezeResult fields
>
> ---
> src/include/access/heapam.h | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/include/access/heapam.h b/src/include/access/heapam.h
> index ee0eca8ae02..b2015f5a1ac 100644
> --- a/src/include/access/heapam.h
> +++ b/src/include/access/heapam.h
> @@ -202,14 +202,17 @@ typedef struct PruneFreezeResult
> int recently_dead_tuples;
> int ndeleted; /* Number of tuples deleted from the page */
> int nnewlpdead; /* Number of newly LP_DEAD items */
> + int nfrozen;

Let's add a comment after int nfrozen like
/* Number of newly frozen tuples */

> +
> bool all_visible; /* Whether or not the page is all visible */
> bool hastup; /* Does page make rel truncation unsafe */
>
> + /* The following fields are only set if freezing */

So, all_frozen will be set correctly if we are even considering freezing
(if pagefrz is passed). all_frozen will be true even if we didn't freeze
anything if the page is all-frozen and can be set as such in the VM. And
it will be false if the page is not all-frozen. So, maybe we say
"considering freezing".

But, I'm glad you thought to call out which of these fields will make
sense to the caller.

Also, maybe we should just name the members to which this applies. It is
a bit confusing that I can't tell if the comment also refers to the
other members following it (lpdead_items and deadoffsets) -- which it
doesn't.

> +
> /* Whether or not the page can be set all frozen in the VM */
> bool all_frozen;
>
> /* Number of newly frozen tuples */
> - int nfrozen;
> TransactionId frz_conflict_horizon; /* Newest xmin on the page */
>
> /* New value of relfrozenxid found by heap_page_prune_and_freeze() */
> --
> 2.39.2
>

- Melanie