| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |
| Date: | 2019-03-07 15:21:51 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYqo5v4SjJZS9YfEEEQiYpO=ZGysXSBzNLRUajEcCDAMA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:58 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Why make it a Node? I mean I think a struct makes sense, but what's
> > the point of giving it a NodeTag?
>
> Well, the main point is consistency with other nodes and keep the code clean.
It looks to me like if we made it a plain struct rather than a node,
and embedded that struct (not a pointer) in VacuumStmt, then what
would happen is that _copyVacuumStmt and _equalVacuumStmt would have
clauses for each vacuum option individually, with a dot, like
COPY_SCALAR_FIELD(options.flags).
Also, the grammar production for VacuumStmt would need to be jiggered
around a bit; the way that options consolidation is done there would
have to be changed.
Neither of those things sound terribly hard or terribly messy, but on
the other hand I guess there's nothing really wrong with the way you
did it, either ... anybody else have an opinion?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-03-07 15:24:11 | Re: [PROPOSAL] Drop orphan temp tables in single-mode |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-03-07 15:14:53 | Re: [HACKERS] Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath |