From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
---|---|
To: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Anastasia Lubennikova <lubennikovaav(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Microvacuum for gist. Question about GISTPageOpaqueData flag |
Date: | 2015-07-27 16:05:28 |
Message-ID: | 55B656C8.1010001@iki.fi |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/27/2015 06:46 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>> I need an advice, what would be better:
>> - to add new flag like F_HAS_GARBAGE,
>> - or to delete all mentions of F_TUPLES_DELETED and use it in gist microvacuum.
>
> According to commit message:
> commit 2effb72e682a7dbdc9a8a60a80c22ec1fa9d8079
> Author: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)iki(dot)fi>
> Date: Fri Nov 7 15:03:46 2014 +0200
> ..
> The code that generated a record to clear the F_TUPLES_DELETED flag hasn't
> existed since we got rid of old-style VACUUM FULL. I kept the code that sets
> the flag, although it's not used for anything anymore, because it might
> still be interesting information for debugging purposes that some tuples
> have been deleted from a page.
> ..
>
> If Heikki doesn't change his opinion then introduce new flag. Although I don't
> think that we need to keep F_TUPLES_DELETED.
It's certainly not needed for anything at the moment, although
conceivably we might reintroduce code that needs it in the future. There
are plenty of flag bits available, so let's use a new flag. If there was
a shortage, I wouldn't blink reusing F_TUPLES_DELETED.
- Heikki
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Anastasia Lubennikova | 2015-07-27 16:12:04 | Re: Microvacuum for gist. Question about GISTPageOpaqueData flag |
Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2015-07-27 15:46:55 | Re: Microvacuum for gist. Question about GISTPageOpaqueData flag |