From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(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 19:43:09 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WznwhdPVfHL1YTRG9N2o2kDD300zwiB2FQa2FE37z9fEkw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 2:32 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 1:52 PM Melanie Plageman
> <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> This analysis seems correct to me, except that "when
> lazy_scan_noprune() is called" should really say "when
> lazy_scan_noprune() is called (and returns true)", because when it
> returns false we fall through and call lazy_scan_prune() afterwards.
Now that I see your patch, I understand what Melanie must have meant.
I agree that there is a small inconsistency here, that we could well
do without.
In general I am in favor of religiously eliminating such
inconsistencies (between lazy_scan_prune and lazy_scan_noprune),
unless there is a reason not to. Not because it's necessarily
important. More because it's just too hard to be sure whether it might
matter. It's usually easier to defensively assume that it matters.
> Here's a draft patch to clean up the inconsistency here. It also gets
> rid of recordfreespace, because ISTM that recordfreespace is adding to
> the confusion here rather than helping anything.
You're using "!prunestate.has_lpdead_items" as part of your test that
sets "recordfreespace". But lazy_scan_noprune doesn't get passed a
pointer to prunestate, so clearly you'll need to detect the same
condition some other way.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-01-12 19:45:55 | Re: introduce dynamic shared memory registry |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-01-12 19:32:13 | Re: Emit fewer vacuum records by reaping removable tuples during pruning |