On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Thank you for updating the patch.
>>>>
>>>> Whole patch looks good to me except for the following one comment.
>>>> This is the final comment from me.
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> * lazy_tid_reaped() -- is a particular tid deletable?
>>>> *
>>>> * This has the right signature to be an IndexBulkDeleteCallback.
>>>> *
>>>> * Assumes dead_tuples array is in sorted order.
>>>> */
>>>> static bool
>>>> lazy_tid_reaped(ItemPointer itemptr, void *state)
>>>> {
>>>> LVRelStats *vacrelstats = (LVRelStats *) state;
>>>>
>>>> You might want to update the comment of lazy_tid_reaped() as well.
>>>
>>> I don't see the mismatch with reality there (if you consider
>>> "dead_tples array" in the proper context, that is, the multiarray).
>>>
>>> What in particular do you find out of sync there?
>>
>> The current lazy_tid_reaped just find a tid from a tid array using
>> bsearch but in your patch lazy_tid_reaped handles multiple tid arrays
>> and processing method become complicated. So I thought it's better to
>> add the description of this function.
>
> Alright, updated with some more remarks that seemed relevant
Thank you for updating the patch.
The patch looks good to me. There is no review comment from me.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
