On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 04:47:35PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote: > It's related code which I cleaned up before adding new stuff. Not essential, > thus separate (0002 should be backpatched).
The issue just causes some extra work and that's not a bug, so applied without a backpatch. >> The refactoring in 0003 is interesting, so I would be tempted to merge >> it. Now you have one small issue in it: >> - /* >> - * Forget the now-vacuumed tuples, and press on, but be careful >> - * not to reset latestRemovedXid since we want that value to be >> - * valid. >> - */ >> + lazy_vacuum_heap_index(onerel, vacrelstats, Irel, nindexes, indstats); >> vacrelstats->num_dead_tuples = 0; >> - vacrelstats->num_index_scans++; >> You are moving this comment within lazy_vacuum_heap_index, but it >> applies to num_dead_tuples and not num_index_scans, no? You should >> keep the incrementation of num_index_scans within the routine though. > > Thank you, fixed. For 0003, I think that lazy_vacuum_heap_index() can be confusing as those indexes are unrelated to heap. Why not naming it just lazy_vacuum_all_indexes()? The routine should also have a header describing it. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature