From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs |
Date: | 2019-06-20 14:35:05 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa7MJScOqoM_Y=2L8wBrudymDdV54o-3P13DT8+--J=hw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 6:48 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > for (;;)
> > {
> > UnpackedUndoRecord *uur = UndoFetchRecord(urp);
> > if (i like this one)
> > break;
> > urp = uur->uur_blkprev; // should be renamed, since zedstore +
> > probably others will have tuple chains not block chains
> ..
>
> +1 for renaming this variable. How about uur_prev_ver or uur_prevver
> or uur_verprev? Any other suggestions?
Maybe just uur_previous or uur_prevundo or something like that. We've
already got a uur_prevurp, but that's really pretty misnamed and IMHO
it doesn't belong in this structure anyway. (uur_next is also a bad
name and also doesn't belong in this structure.)
I don't think we want to use 'ver' because that supposes that undo is
being used to track tuple versions, which is a likely use but perhaps
not the only one.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-06-20 14:52:54 | Re: benchmarking Flex practices |
Previous Message | John Naylor | 2019-06-20 14:31:06 | benchmarking Flex practices |