Re: Emit fewer vacuum records by reaping removable tuples during pruning

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: 2024-01-12 21:05:35
Message-ID: CAAKRu_bV3QcufwcV2+9NxJY5upwuM04WF2RhAR4aJo2RJuWr2w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 3:22 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 3:04 PM Melanie Plageman
> <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> So what's the best way to solve the problem that Peter pointed out?
> Should we pass in the prunestate? Maybe just replace bool
> *recordfreespace with bool *has_lpdead_items?

Yea, that works for now. I mean, I think the way we should do it is
update the FSM in lazy_scan_noprune(), but, for the purposes of this
patch, yes. has_lpdead_items output parameter seems fine to me.

- Melanie

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2024-01-12 21:11:19 Re: libpq compression (part 3)
Previous Message Jacob Burroughs 2024-01-12 21:02:47 Re: libpq compression (part 3)