Re: Proposal: GetOldestXminExtend for ignoring arbitrary vacuum flags

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Haribabu Kommi
<kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Seki, Eiji <seki(dot)eiji(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
> wrote:
>> Thank you for your comments.
>>
>> I reflected these comments to the attached patch. And I renamed IGNORE_XXX
>> flags to PROCARRAY_XXX flags.
>
> I checked the latest patch and I have some comments.
>
> +static int
> +ConvertProcarrayFlagToProcFlag(int flags)
>
> I feel this function is not needed, if we try to maintain same flag values
> for both PROC_XXX and PROCARRAY_XXX by writing some comments
> in the both the declarations place to make sure that the person modifying
> the flag values needs to update them in both the places. I feel it is
> usually
> rare that the flag values gets changed.

Yeah, it doesn't seem like a good idea to add additional computation
to something that's already a known hot spot.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company