Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1LjHouE4RaP7QToLY7k7L7fxafMb9J5G3bJzNvNT-ejag@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum (Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:51 PM Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 16:13, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > SizeOfLVDeadTuplesHeader is not defined by patch. Do you think it > > makes sense to add a comment here about the calculation? > > Oops, it should be SizeOfLVDeadTuples. Attached updated version. > > I defined two macros: SizeOfLVDeadTuples is the size of LVDeadTuples > struct and SizeOfDeadTuples is the size including LVDeadTuples struct > and dead tuples. > I have reproduced the issue by defining MaxAllocSize as 10240000 and then during debugging, skipped the check related to LAZY_ALLOC_TUPLES. After patch, it fixes the problem for me. I have slightly modified your patch to define the macros on the lines of existing macros TXID_SNAPSHOT_SIZE and TXID_SNAPSHOT_MAX_NXIP. What do you think about it? Andres, see if you get a chance to run the test again with the attached patch, otherwise, I will commit it tomorrow morning. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: