Re: Reducing the WAL overhead of freezing in VACUUM by deduplicating per-tuple freeze plans

From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Reducing the WAL overhead of freezing in VACUUM by deduplicating per-tuple freeze plans
Date: 2022-11-11 02:59:58
Message-ID: 20221111025958.GC16809@telsasoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 04:48:17PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 3:12 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> > Attached is v2, which I'm just posting to keep CFTester happy. No real
> > changes here.
>
> Attached is v3. I'd like to move forward with commit soon. I'll do so
> in the next few days, barring objections.

Note that this comment is dangling in your patch:

+{
+ Page page = BufferGetPage(buffer);
+
+ /* nor when there are no tuples to freeze */
...
- /* Caller should not call me on a non-WAL-logged relation */
- Assert(RelationNeedsWAL(reln));
- /* nor when there are no tuples to freeze */
- Assert(ntuples > 0);

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Japin Li 2022-11-11 03:26:13 Typo about subxip in comments
Previous Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2022-11-11 02:29:04 Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes