I did not see any problems in this version of the patch. The
information
displayed by pg_waldump for the PREPARE record is sufficient for use.
Thanks Andrey and Michael for the review! I committed the patch.
Regards,
Hi,
There is a mistake in the comment in the definition of
Barring any objection, I'm thinking to commit this patch.
Regards,
Build and All Test has passed .
Looks good to me .
Regards,
Size in block number is useless for those who doesn't understand the
notion of block, or block size. Those who understands the notion
should come up with the simple formula (except the annoying
casts). Anyone can find the clue to the base values by searching the
document in the Web with the
+ VACOPT_RESUME = 1 << 8/* resume from the previous point */
I think this unused ENUM value is not needed.
Regards,
Yu Kimura
btkimurayuzk writes:
I propose new simple sql query, which shows total block numbers in the
relation.
...
Of cource, we can know this value such as
select (pg_relation_size('t') /
current_setting('block_size')::bigint)::int;
I don't really see why the existing solution isn't sufficient.
I
2019-11-06 11:31 に Fujii Masao さんは書きました:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 6:23 AM Fabien COELHO
wrote:
Hello,
>>> - for (step = initialize_steps; *step != '\0'; step++)
>>> + for (const char *step = initialize_steps; *step != '\0'; step++)
>
> But I still wonder why we should apply such change here.
Hello,
I propose new simple sql query, which shows total block numbers in the
relation.
I now reviewing this patch (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/25/2211/)
and I think,
it is usefull for knowing how many blocks there are in the relation to
determine whether we use VACUUM RESUME or not.
