| From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Emit fewer vacuum records by reaping removable tuples during pruning |
| Date: | 2024-01-12 18:52:14 |
| Message-ID: | CAAKRu_bzobqdD=xSLDmDSMXB-7rkf9pa4KpYQC64AO6WvQONrA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 1:07 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 12:33 PM Melanie Plageman
> <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > So, I think this is the logic in master:
> >
> > Prune case, first pass
> >
> > ...
> > - indexes > 0 && (!space_freed || !index_vacuuming) -> update FSM
>
> What is "space_freed"? Isn't that something from your uncommitted patch?
Yes, I was mixing the two together.
I just want to make sure that we agree that, on master, when
lazy_scan_prune() is called, the logic for whether or not to update
the FSM after the first pass is:
indexes == 0 || !has_lpdead_items || !index_vacuuming
and when lazy_scan_noprune() is called, the logic for whether or not
to update the FSM after the first pass is:
indexes == 0 || !has_lpdead_items
Those seem different to me.
- Melanie
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2024-01-12 19:02:21 | Re: Emit fewer vacuum records by reaping removable tuples during pruning |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-01-12 18:45:53 | Re: Emit fewer vacuum records by reaping removable tuples during pruning |