Re: Rename dead_tuples to dead_items in vacuumlazy.c
От | Masahiko Sawada |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Rename dead_tuples to dead_items in vacuumlazy.c |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAD21AoDm38Em0bvRqeQKr4HPvOj65Y8cUgCP4idMk39iaLrxyw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Rename dead_tuples to dead_items in vacuumlazy.c (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Ответы |
Re: Rename dead_tuples to dead_items in vacuumlazy.c
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:00 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:48 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > > The patch renames dead tuples to dead items at some places and to > > dead TIDs at some places. > > > I think it's more consistent if we change it to one side. I prefer "dead items". > > I just pushed a version of the patch that still uses both terms when > talking about dead_items. Thanks! I'll change my parallel vacuum refactoring patch accordingly. Regarding the commit, I think that there still is one place in lazyvacuum.c where we can change "dead tuples” to "dead items”: /* * Allocate the space for dead tuples. Note that this handles parallel * VACUUM initialization as part of allocating shared memory space used * for dead_items. */ dead_items_alloc(vacrel, params->nworkers); dead_items = vacrel->dead_items; Also, the commit doesn't change both PROGRESS_VACUUM_MAX_DEAD_TUPLES and PROGRESS_VACUUM_NUM_DEAD_TUPLES. Did you leave them on purpose? Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: