Re: Proposal: GetOldestXminExtend for ignoring arbitrary vacuum flags

From: "Seki, Eiji" <seki(dot)eiji(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: 'Haribabu Kommi' <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, 'Robert Haas' <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Proposal: GetOldestXminExtend for ignoring arbitrary vacuum flags
Date: 2017-02-24 04:17:20
Message-ID: A11BD0E1A40FAC479D740CEFA373E203396A9BCB@g01jpexmbkw05
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-02-15 17:27:11 Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 2/14/17 3:13 AM, Seki, Eiji wrote:
> >> +extern TransactionId GetOldestXmin(Relation rel, uint8 ignoreFlags);
> >
> >
> > My impression is that most other places that do this sort of thing just call
> > the argument 'flags', so as not to "lock in" a single idea of what the flags
> > are for. I can't readily think of another use for flags in GetOldestXmin,
> > but ISTM it's better to just go with "flags" instead of "ignoreFlags".
> I agree; also, many years ago a guy named Tom Lane told me that flags
> argument should typically be declared as type "int". I've followed
> that advice ever since.

Thank you for your comments.

I reflected these comments to the attached patch. And I renamed IGNORE_XXX flags to PROCARRAY_XXX flags.

Eiji Seki

Attachment Content-Type Size
get_oldest_xmin_with_ignore_flags_v2.patch application/octet-stream 9.1 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2017-02-24 04:23:02 Re: Documentation improvements for partitioning
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-02-24 03:59:51 Re: A typo in mcxt.c