From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: error context for vacuum to include block number |
Date: | 2020-03-26 06:33:42 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LBtp+qpsz8uR-oj2h6jzhLEVo9TEdm46anKM-n=8nS0g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:11 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Seems fine. Rather than saying "different phases" I, would say:
> "The index vacuum and heap vacuum phases may be called multiple times in the
> middle of the heap scan phase."
>
Okay, I have slightly adjusted the wording as per your suggestion.
> But actually I think the concern is not that we unnecessarily "Revert back to
> the old phase" but that we do it in a *loop*. Which I agree doesn't make
> sense, to go back and forth between "scanning heap" and "truncating".
>
Fair point. I have moved the change to the truncate phase at the
caller of lazy_heap_truncate() which should address this concern.
Sawada-San, does this address your concern?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-03-26 06:34:20 | Re: error context for vacuum to include block number |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-03-26 06:22:06 | Re: allow online change primary_conninfo |