| From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Emit fewer vacuum records by reaping removable tuples during pruning |
| Date: | 2024-01-16 16:28:46 |
| Message-ID: | CAAKRu_Zjs-Egy_pwEDV7t-1aD9K2zyOzb1Gwbsa-jN+k0kTEZw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 10:24 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 4:03 PM Melanie Plageman
> <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps it isn't important, but I find this wording confusing. You
> > mention lazy_scan_prune() and then mention that "the whole test is in
> > one place instead of spread out" -- which kind of makes it sound like
> > you are consolidating FSM updates for both the lazy_scan_noprune() and
> > lazy_scan_prune() cases. Perhaps simply flipping the order of the "since
> > the caller" and "moreover, this way" conjunctions would solve it. I
> > defer to your judgment.
>
> I rewrote the commit message a bit. See what you think of this version.
All LGTM.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-01-16 16:34:42 | Re: "ERROR: could not open relation with OID 16391" error was encountered when reindexing |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2024-01-16 16:25:05 | Re: index prefetching |