Re: error context for vacuum to include block number

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: error context for vacuum to include block number
Date: 2020-03-26 06:34:20
Message-ID: CAA4eK1L33gvQ1z-CHctzTWng2HfmFn0cDJif_mpBOvG47Mymow@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:03 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:11 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Seems fine. Rather than saying "different phases" I, would say:
> > "The index vacuum and heap vacuum phases may be called multiple times in the
> > middle of the heap scan phase."
> >
>
> Okay, I have slightly adjusted the wording as per your suggestion.
>
> > But actually I think the concern is not that we unnecessarily "Revert back to
> > the old phase" but that we do it in a *loop*. Which I agree doesn't make
> > sense, to go back and forth between "scanning heap" and "truncating".
> >
>
> Fair point. I have moved the change to the truncate phase at the
> caller of lazy_heap_truncate() which should address this concern.
> Sawada-San, does this address your concern?
>

Forgot to attach the patch, doing now.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
v35-0001-Introduce-vacuum-errcontext-to-display-additiona.patch application/octet-stream 21.9 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2020-03-26 06:36:25 Re: color by default
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2020-03-26 06:33:42 Re: error context for vacuum to include block number