From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(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: | 2021-11-24 05:58:55 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-udDfPJ=bM-2mpY8JVEjvASSbhWCy9aXJOS5y8mB4k5RQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 11:16 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> Attached patch performs polishing within vacuumlazy.c, as follow-up
> work to the refactoring work in Postgres 14. This mainly consists of
> changing references of dead tuples to dead items, which reflects the
> fact that VACUUM no longer deals with TIDs that might point to
> remaining heap tuples with storage -- the TIDs in the array must now
> strictly point to LP_DEAD stub line pointers that remain in the heap,
> following pruning.
>
> I've also simplified header comments, and comments above the main
> entry point functions. These comments made much more sense back when
> lazy_scan_heap() was simpler, but wasn't yet broken up into smaller,
> better-scoped functions.
>
> If there are no objections, I'll move on this soon. It's mostly just
> mechanical changes.
-#define PROGRESS_VACUUM_NUM_DEAD_TUPLES 6
+#define PROGRESS_VACUUM_MAX_DEAD_ITEMS 5
+#define PROGRESS_VACUUM_NUM_DEAD_ITEMS 6
Wouldn't this be more logical to change to DEAD_TIDS instead of DEAD_ITEMS?
+ /* Sorted list of TIDs to delete from indexes */
+ ItemPointerData dead[FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER];
Instead of just dead, why not deadtid or deaditem?
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2021-11-24 06:11:51 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-11-24 05:46:15 | Re: row filtering for logical replication |