Re: More vacuum.c refactoring

Where are we on this?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Lane wrote:
> Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at> writes:
> > I understand you, honestly.  Do I read between your lines that you
> > didn't review my previous vacuum.c refactoring patch?  Please do.  It'd
> > make *me* more comfortable.
> 
> I did not yet, but I will get to it.  I encourage everyone else to
> take a look too.  I agree with Alvaro that fooling with this code
> merits extreme caution.
> 
> BTW, I do not at all mean to suggest that vacuum.c contains no bugs
> at the moment ;-).  I suspect for example that it is a bit random
> about whether MOVED_OFF/MOVED_IN bits get cleared immediately, or
> only by the next transaction that chances to visit the tuple.  The
> next-transaction-fixup behavior has to be there in case the VACUUM
> transaction crashes, but that doesn't mean that VACUUM should
> deliberately leave work undone.
> 
> > I see three significant differences between the code in repair_frag()
> > and vacuum_page().
> 
> Will study these comments later, but it's too late at night here...
> again, the more eyeballs on this the better...
> 
>             regards, tom lane
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>       subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
>       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
> 

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073