From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Strange assertion using VACOPT_FREEZE in vacuum.c |
Date: | 2015-03-18 00:02:10 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSomCcR5761UBZ3tpLn0CPSYCYHvP32TJfDcCG4i_qFrQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Here's an updated patch. I took your latest version and made some extra
> changes:
Thanks for taking the time to look at it!
> 1. ordered the argument list to vacuum(), hopefully it's more sensible
> now.
Fine for me.
> 2. changed struct autovac_table so that it uses "options" (the same
> VacuumOption bitmask to be passed to vacuum) and VacuumParams, instead
> of having each struct member separately. That way, the parameters to
> vacuum() are constructed at once in autovac_recheck_table, and
> autovacuum_do_vac_analyze becomes much simpler.
>
> 3. Added VACOPT_SKIPTOAST to VacuumOptions, currently only used by
> autovacuum. We remove the do_toast argument.
Those are good ideas, and it simplifies a bit more code.
I had a look at your modified version, and it looks good to me.
> I think this is pretty sensible and my inclination is to commit as is,
> so that we can finally move on to more interesting things (such as the
> new reloption being proposed in a nearby thread).
Thanks. I'll do a rebase if this goes in first.
Regards,
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-03-18 01:06:27 | Re: proposal: searching in array function - array_position |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-03-18 00:01:36 | Re: Rethinking the parameter access hooks for plpgsql's benefit |