| From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Anastasia Lubennikova <lubennikovaav(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem |
| Date: | 2017-02-01 21:02:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAGTBQpY3FUTLrXG-Tib4-r2TJvE_htGN3ufYLffmB6SXhOOVXQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thank you for updating the patch.
>
> Whole patch looks good to me except for the following one comment.
> This is the final comment from me.
>
> /*
> * lazy_tid_reaped() -- is a particular tid deletable?
> *
> * This has the right signature to be an IndexBulkDeleteCallback.
> *
> * Assumes dead_tuples array is in sorted order.
> */
> static bool
> lazy_tid_reaped(ItemPointer itemptr, void *state)
> {
> LVRelStats *vacrelstats = (LVRelStats *) state;
>
> You might want to update the comment of lazy_tid_reaped() as well.
I don't see the mismatch with reality there (if you consider
"dead_tples array" in the proper context, that is, the multiarray).
What in particular do you find out of sync there?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-02-01 21:11:52 | Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-02-01 20:59:10 | Re: PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan |