Re: Rename dead_tuples to dead_items in vacuumlazy.c

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rename dead_tuples to dead_items in vacuumlazy.c
Date: 2021-11-29 17:59:51
Message-ID: CAH2-WzmqEsU7z04ViQU+m0R+TC3nhALoy3JsVWjVQiSbccNeFg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:48 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The patch renames dead tuples to dead items at some places and to
> dead TIDs at some places.

> I think it's more consistent if we change it to one side. I prefer "dead items".

I just pushed a version of the patch that still uses both terms when
talking about dead_items. But the final commit actually makes it clear
why, in comments above the LVDeadItems struct itself: LVDeadItems is
used by both index vacuuming and heap vacuuming.

Thanks
--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bossart, Nathan 2021-11-29 18:06:22 Re: XMAX_LOCK_ONLY and XMAX_COMMITTED (fk/multixact code)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-11-29 16:48:39 Re: Rationalizing declarations of src/common/ variables