On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 5:07 PM Anthonin Bonnefoy <anthonin.bonne...@datadoghq.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 2:00 PM Alena Rybakina <lena.riback...@yandex.ru> > wrote: >> >> Hi, thank you for your work with this subject. >> >> While I was reviewing your code, I noticed that your patch conflicts with >> another patch [0] that been committed. >> >> [0] >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA%2BhUKGJkOiOCa%2Bmag4BF%2BzHo7qo%3Do9CFheB8%3Dg6uT5TUm2gkvA%40mail.gmail.com > > > I've rebased the patch and also split the changes:
Thank you for updating the patch! > 1: Use pgBufferUsage in Vacuum and Analyze block reporting I think that if the anayze command doesn't have the same issue, we don't need to change it. Making the vacuum and the analyze consistent is a good point but I'd like to avoid doing unnecessary changes in back branches. I think the patch set would contain: (a) make lazy vacuum use BufferUsage instead of VacuumPage{Hit,Miss,Dirty}. (backpatched down to pg13). (b) make analyze use BufferUsage and remove VacuumPage{Hit,Miss,Dirty} variables for consistency and simplicity (only for HEAD, if we agree). BTW I realized that VACUUM VERBOSE running on a temp table always shows the number of dirtied buffers being 0, which seems to be a bug. The patch (a) will resolve it as well. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com