Re: Questions/Observations related to Gist vacuum
От | Andrey Borodin |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Questions/Observations related to Gist vacuum |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 94FB5F8A-1EDB-4B1F-A4D6-DC4D1F2AD232@yandex-team.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Questions/Observations related to Gist vacuum (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Questions/Observations related to Gist vacuum
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> 21 окт. 2019 г., в 11:12, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> написал(а): > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 2:30 PM Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru> wrote: >> >> I've took a look into the patch, and cannot understand one simple thing... >> We should not call gistvacuum_delete_empty_pages() for same gist_stats twice. >> Another way once the function is called we should somehow update or zero empty_leaf_set. >> Does this invariant hold in your patch? >> > Thanks for looking into the patch. With this patch now > GistBulkDeleteResult is local to single gistbulkdelete call or > gistvacuumcleanup. So now we are not sharing GistBulkDeleteResult, > across the calls so I am not sure how it will be called twice for the > same gist_stats? I might be missing something here? Yes, you are right, sorry for the noise. Currently we are doing both gistvacuumscan() and gistvacuum_delete_empty_pages() in both gistbulkdelete() and gistvacuumcleanup().Is it supposed to be so? Functions gistbulkdelete() and gistvacuumcleanup() look very similar and sharesome comments. This is what triggered my attention. Thanks! -- Andrey Borodin Open source RDBMS development team leader Yandex.Cloud
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: