Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
От | Bossart, Nathan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 39FA1BCE-E0AF-4F54-93A0-BECADA95F062@amazon.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/23/17, 11:59 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: > + * relations is a list of VacuumRelations to process. If it is NIL, all > + * relations in the database are processed. > Typo here, VacuumRelation is singular. This should be fixed in v9. On 8/24/17, 5:45 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: > This makes me think that it could be a good idea to revisit this bit > in a separate patch. ANALYZE fails as well now when the same column is > defined multiple times with an incomprehensible error message. The de-duplication code is now in a separate patch, dedupe_vacuum_relations_v1.patch. I believe it fixes the incomprehensible error message you were experiencing, but please let me know if you are still hitting it. On 8/25/17, 6:00 PM, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > + oldcontext = MemoryContextSwitchTo(vac_context); > + foreach(lc, relations) > + temp_relations = lappend(temp_relations, copyObject(lfirst(lc))); > + MemoryContextSwitchTo(oldcontext); > + relations = temp_relations; > > Can't we just copyObject() on the whole list? I've made this change. > - ListCell *cur; > - > > Why change this? Generally, declaring a separate variable in an inner > scope seems like better style than reusing one that happens to be > lying around in the outer scope. I've removed this change. > + VacuumRelation *relinfo = (VacuumRelation *) lfirst(lc); > > Could use lfirst_node. Done. On 8/28/17, 5:28 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, if I understand that correctly. That's the point I am exactly > coming at. My suggestion is to have one VacuumRelation entry per > relation vacuumed, even for partitioned tables, and copy the list of > columns to each one. I've made this change in v9. It does clean up the patch quite a bit. Nathan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: