Re: a verbose option for autovacuum

On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 01:06:51PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> It's not bad but it seems redundant a bit to me. We pass the idx in
> spite of passing also Irel[idx] and &(vacrelstats->indstats[idx]). I
> think your first idea that is done in v4 patch (saving index names at
> the beginning of heap_vacuum_rel() for autovacuum logging purpose
> only) and the idea of deferring to close indexes until the end of
> heap_vacuum_rel() so that we can refer index name at autovacuum
> logging are more simple.

Okay.

> We need to initialize *stats with NULL here.

Right. I am wondering why I did not get any complain here.

> If shared_indstats is NULL (e.g., we do " stats =
> vacrelstats->indstats[indnum];"), vacrelstats->indstats[indnum] is not
> updated since we pass &stats. I think we should pass
> &(vacrelstats->indstats[indnum]) instead in this case.

If we get rid completely of this idea around indnum, that I don't
disagree with so let's keep just indname, you mean to keep the second
argument IndexBulkDeleteResult of vacuum_one_index() and pass down
&(vacrelstats->indstats[indnum]) as argument. No objections from me
to just do that.

> Previously, we update the element of the pointer array of index
> statistics to the pointer pointing to either the local memory or DSM.
> But with the above change, we do that only when the index statistics
> are in the local memory. In other words, vacrelstats->indstats[i] is
> never updated if the corresponding index supports parallel indexes. I
> think this is not relevant with the change that we'd like to do here
> (i.e., passing indnum down).

Yeah, that looks like just some over-engineering design on my side.
Would you like to update the patch with what you think is most
adapted?
--
Michael