On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 1:52 PM Melanie Plageman <melanieplage...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, I was mixing the two together. > > I just want to make sure that we agree that, on master, when > lazy_scan_prune() is called, the logic for whether or not to update > the FSM after the first pass is: > > indexes == 0 || !has_lpdead_items || !index_vacuuming > > and when lazy_scan_noprune() is called, the logic for whether or not > to update the FSM after the first pass is: > > indexes == 0 || !has_lpdead_items > > Those seem different to me.
This analysis seems correct to me, except that "when lazy_scan_noprune() is called" should really say "when lazy_scan_noprune() is called (and returns true)", because when it returns false we fall through and call lazy_scan_prune() afterwards. Here's a draft patch to clean up the inconsistency here. It also gets rid of recordfreespace, because ISTM that recordfreespace is adding to the confusion here rather than helping anything. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
v1-0001-Be-more-consistent-about-whether-to-update-the-FS.patch.nocfbot
Description: Binary data
