Re: Revive num_dead_tuples column of pg_stat_progress_vacuum

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 9:22 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 9:57 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 9:41 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 08:38:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > >> I was about to push the patch but let me confirm just in case: is it
> > > >> okay to bump the catversion even after post-beta1?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that happens somewhat routinely.
> > >
> > > Up to RC, even after beta2. This happens routinely every year because
> > > tweaks are always required for what got committed. And that's OK to
> > > do so now.
> >
> > Thank you both for confirmation. I'll push it shortly.
> >
>
> Pushed. Thank you for giving feedback and reviewing the patch!
>

One minor side effect of this change is the original idea of comparing
pg_stat_progress.num_dead_tuples to pg_stat_all_tables.n_dead_tup
column becomes less obvious. I presume the release notes for
pg_stat_progress_vacuum will be updated to also include this column
name change as well, so maybe that's enough for folks to figure things
out? At least I couldn't find anywhere in the docs where we have
described the relationship between these columns before. Thoughts?

Robert Treat
https://xzilla.net