Re: Rename dead_tuples to dead_items in vacuumlazy.c
От | Dilip Kumar |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Rename dead_tuples to dead_items in vacuumlazy.c |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFiTN-udDfPJ=bM-2mpY8JVEjvASSbhWCy9aXJOS5y8mB4k5RQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Rename dead_tuples to dead_items in vacuumlazy.c (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 11:16 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: > > Attached patch performs polishing within vacuumlazy.c, as follow-up > work to the refactoring work in Postgres 14. This mainly consists of > changing references of dead tuples to dead items, which reflects the > fact that VACUUM no longer deals with TIDs that might point to > remaining heap tuples with storage -- the TIDs in the array must now > strictly point to LP_DEAD stub line pointers that remain in the heap, > following pruning. > > I've also simplified header comments, and comments above the main > entry point functions. These comments made much more sense back when > lazy_scan_heap() was simpler, but wasn't yet broken up into smaller, > better-scoped functions. > > If there are no objections, I'll move on this soon. It's mostly just > mechanical changes. -#define PROGRESS_VACUUM_NUM_DEAD_TUPLES 6 +#define PROGRESS_VACUUM_MAX_DEAD_ITEMS 5 +#define PROGRESS_VACUUM_NUM_DEAD_ITEMS 6 Wouldn't this be more logical to change to DEAD_TIDS instead of DEAD_ITEMS? + /* Sorted list of TIDs to delete from indexes */ + ItemPointerData dead[FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER]; Instead of just dead, why not deadtid or deaditem? -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: