Re: Backpatch b61d161c14 (Introduce vacuum errcontext ...)
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Backpatch b61d161c14 (Introduce vacuum errcontext ...) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1JoFLAeP3aDaYr3jq3uaoNY=Qoj=tB_HjMtMgvErtybLw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Backpatch b61d161c14 (Introduce vacuum errcontext ...) (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Backpatch b61d161c14 (Introduce vacuum errcontext ...)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:19 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 7:25 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > > > > > Comments: > > > > > * The index name is saved only during this phase and restored immediately > > > > => I wouldn't say "only" since it's saved during lazy_vacuum: index AND cleanup. > > > > >update_vacuum_error_info(LVRelStats *errinfo, LVSavedErrInfo *oldpos, int phase, > > > > => You called your struct "LVSavedErrInfo" but the variables are still called > > "pos". I would call it olderrinfo or just old. > > > > Fixed both of the above comments. I used the variable name as saved_err_info. > > > Also, this doesn't (re)rename the "cbarg" stuff that Alvaro didn't like, which > > was my 0001 patch. > > > > If I am not missing anything then that change was in > lazy_cleanup_index and after this patch, it won't be required because > we are using a different variable name. > > I have combined both the patches now. > I am planning to push this tomorrow if there are no further suggestions/comments. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: