From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: add PROCESS_MAIN to VACUUM |
Date: | 2023-03-06 20:48:28 |
Message-ID: | CAAKRu_ZJMFrO_tspzoX43h9NyEFS1nS438MoS3Yv7JxK3=jFPw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 3:27 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 02:40:09PM -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > I noticed in vacuum_rel() in vacuum.c where table_relation_vacuum() is
> > called, 4211fbd84 changes the else into an else if [1]. I understand
> > after reading the commit and re-reading the code why that is now, but I
> > was initially confused. I was thinking it might be nice to have a
> > comment mentioning why there is no else case here (i.e. that the main
> > table relation will be vacuumed on the else if branch).
>
> This was a hack to avoid another level of indentation for that whole block
> of code, but based on your comment, it might be better to just surround
> this entire section with an "if (params->options & VACOPT_PROCESS_MAIN)"
> check. WDYT?
I think that would be clearer.
- Melanie
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark (as CFM) | 2023-03-06 20:55:01 | Re: On login trigger: take three |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark (as CFM) | 2023-03-06 20:45:31 | Re: proposal: possibility to read dumped table's name from file |