On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 10:25 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Thank you for updating the patch! The changes in v3 appear
> straightforward; the patch eliminates unnecessary codes that were
> introduced in the original commit due to some misunderstandings. And I
> agreed with your answer[1] to my que
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 10:01 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 2:59 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> >
> > I liked this version more. I agree that the asserts were causing some
> > confusion.
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> Sawada-san, do you have any objection to this being me
On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 2:59 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>
> I liked this version more. I agree that the asserts were causing some
> confusion.
Thanks for the review!
Sawada-san, do you have any objection to this being merged in
master/18? I know you had said changing the if statements to asser
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 4:01 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>
> > Thank you for the patch! I could not understand the following change:
> >
> > + /* We know the page should not have been all-visible */
> > + Assert((old_vmbits & VISIBILITYMAP_VALID_BITS) == 0);
> > + (void) old_vmbi
Hi,
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 at 07:13, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
Thank you for working on this!
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 4:21 AM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > In dc6acfd910b8, I added some counters to track and log in
> > autovacuum/vacuum output the number of pages newly set
> > al
Hi,
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 at 18:12, Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 9:17 AM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 4:01 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I think we do not need to check visibility of the page here, as we
> > > already know that page
Thanks for the review!
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 12:12 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 4:21 AM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
>
> The flags is initialized as:
>
> uint8 flags = VISIBILITYMAP_ALL_VISIBLE;
>
> so the new if-condition is always true.
Yep, this was a mi
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 9:17 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 4:01 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>
> > I think we do not need to check visibility of the page here, as we
> > already know that page was not all-visible due to LP_DEAD items. We
> > can simply increment the vacrel
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 4:21 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In dc6acfd910b8, I added some counters to track and log in
> autovacuum/vacuum output the number of pages newly set
> all-visible/frozen. Taking another look at the code recently, I
> realized the conditions for setting the counte
Hi,
In dc6acfd910b8, I added some counters to track and log in
autovacuum/vacuum output the number of pages newly set
all-visible/frozen. Taking another look at the code recently, I
realized the conditions for setting the counters could be simplified
because of what we know to be true about the st
10 matches
Mail list logo
