On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 12:11 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 7:09 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > For the second issue, I've changed lazy vacuum so that it reports both > > the number of kilobytes we freed and the number of kilobytes can be > > freed after index cleanup. > > I am not very convinced that this reporting is in any useful to users. > Despite N kilobytes of tuples having been freed, the pages themselves > are still allocated and the actual ability to reuse that space may be > dependent on lots of factors that the user can't control like the > sizes of newly-inserted tuples and the degree to which the free space > map is accurate.
Hmm, it's a term problem? The phrase 'x bytes vacuumed' would solve it? > > I feel like we're drifting off into inventing new kinds of reporting > here instead of focusing on fixing the reported defects of the > already-committed patch, but perhaps I am taking too narrow a view of > the situation. I should have divided the patches into two: fixing assertion error and the reporting. I think we could think the latter issue also is a kind of bug because it can report something like "1000 index tuples vacuumed but 0 heap tuple vacuumed" in case where the vacuumed table had only dead line pointers. Maybe I should add an another open item for the latter. Attached the split version patches. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
fix_vacuum_reporting_v2.patch
Description: Binary data
fix_assertion_v2.patch
Description: Binary data
