Re: Simplify VM counters in vacuum code

From: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Simplify VM counters in vacuum code
Date: 2025-06-24 15:12:45
Message-ID: CAAKRu_YmNd3yzAGpaKrmfsNT3t9KULbgkUQe2_r-btVzdLYj3A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 9:17 AM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 4:01 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > I think we do not need to check visibility of the page here, as we
> > already know that page was not all-visible due to LP_DEAD items. We
> > can simply increment the vacrel->vm_new_visible_pages and check
> > whether the page is frozen.
>
> My idea with the assert was sort of to codify the expectation that the
> page couldn't have been all-visible because of the dead items. But
> perhaps that is obvious. But you are right that the if statement is
> not needed. Perhaps I ought to remove the asserts as they may be more
> confusing than helpful.

Thinking about this more, I think it is better without the asserts.
I've done this in attached v3.

- Melanie

Attachment Content-Type Size
v3-0001-Simplify-vacuum-VM-update-logging-counters.patch text/x-patch 4.1 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2025-06-24 15:14:37 Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory?
Previous Message Jelte Fennema-Nio 2025-06-24 15:12:04 Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory?