Re: Proposal: GetOldestXminExtend for ignoring arbitrary vacuum flags

On 2017-02-24 04:17:20 Haribabu Kommi wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Seki, Eiji <seki(dot)eiji(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Thank you for your comments.
>>
>> I reflected these comments to the attached patch. And I renamed IGNORE_XXX
>> flags to PROCARRAY_XXX flags.
>
>
>I checked the latest patch and I have some comments.
>
>+static int
>+ConvertProcarrayFlagToProcFlag(int flags)
>
>I feel this function is not needed, if we try to maintain same flag values
>for both PROC_XXX and PROCARRAY_XXX by writing some comments
>in the both the declarations place to make sure that the person modifying
>the flag values needs to update them in both the places. I feel it is
>usually
>rare that the flag values gets changed.
>
>+ * Now, flags is used only for ignoring backends with some flags.
>
>How about writing something like below.
>
>The flags are used to ignore the backends in calculation when any of the
>corresponding flags is set.
>
>+#define PROCARRAY_A_FLAG_VACUUM
>
>How about changing the flag name to PROCARRAY_VACUUM_FLAG
>(similar changes to other declarations)
>
>
>+/* Use these flags in GetOldestXmin as "flags" */
>
>Add some comments here to explain how to use these flags.
>
>+#define PROCARRAY_FLAGS_DEFAULT
>
>same here also as PROCARRAY_DEFAULT_FLAGS
>(similar changes to other declarations)

Thank you for you review.

I reflected your comment and attach the updated patch.

--
Regards,
Eiji Seki
Fujitsu