On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 10:38 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 10:22 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 7:19 PM Andrey M. Borodin <x4...@yandex-team.ru> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4 Jun 2024, at 00:26, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Thank you! Vacuum enhancement is a really good step forward, and this > > > small change would help a lot of observability tools. > > > > > > > > > > On 4 Jun 2024, at 00:49, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > > > > > > > > Can we rename this to num_dead_item_ids (or something similar) in > > > > passing? > > > > > > I do not insist, but many tools will have to adapt to this change [0,1]. > > > However, most of tools will have to deal with removed max_dead_tuples > > > anyway [2], so this is not that big problem. > > > > True, this incompatibility would not be a big problem. > > > > num_dead_item_ids seems good to me. I've updated the patch that > > incorporated the comment from Álvaro[1]. > > I'm going to push the v2 patch in a few days if there is no further comment. >
I was about to push the patch but let me confirm just in case: is it okay to bump the catversion even after post-beta1? This patch reintroduces a previously-used column to pg_stat_progress_vacuum so it requires bumping the catversion. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
