From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Rename dead_tuples to dead_items in vacuumlazy.c |
Date: | 2021-11-30 03:00:19 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoDm38Em0bvRqeQKr4HPvOj65Y8cUgCP4idMk39iaLrxyw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:00 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:48 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > The patch renames dead tuples to dead items at some places and to
> > dead TIDs at some places.
>
> > I think it's more consistent if we change it to one side. I prefer "dead items".
>
> I just pushed a version of the patch that still uses both terms when
> talking about dead_items.
Thanks! I'll change my parallel vacuum refactoring patch accordingly.
Regarding the commit, I think that there still is one place in
lazyvacuum.c where we can change "dead tuples” to "dead items”:
/*
* Allocate the space for dead tuples. Note that this handles parallel
* VACUUM initialization as part of allocating shared memory space used
* for dead_items.
*/
dead_items_alloc(vacrel, params->nworkers);
dead_items = vacrel->dead_items;
Also, the commit doesn't change both PROGRESS_VACUUM_MAX_DEAD_TUPLES
and PROGRESS_VACUUM_NUM_DEAD_TUPLES. Did you leave them on purpose?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-11-30 03:49:14 | RE: row filtering for logical replication |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-11-30 02:51:37 | Re: Unifying VACUUM VERBOSE and log_autovacuum_min_duration output |