On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:29 PM Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.saw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 07:17, Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:04:57AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > > Does that address your comment ? > > > > I hope so. > > Thank you for updating the patch. I'm concerned a bit about overhead > of frequently updating and reverting the callback arguments in > lazy_vacuum_page(). We call that function every time when we vacuum a > page, but if the table has an index, we actually don't need to update > the callback arguments in that function. But I hope it's negligible > since all operation will be performed on memory. >
Right, it will be a few instructions. I think if there is any overhead of this, we can easily avoid that by (a) adding a check in update_vacuum_error_cbarg which tells if the phase is getting changed or not and if it is not changed, then return, (b) pass additional in lazy_vacuum_page() to indicate whether we need to change the phase, (c) just invoke update_vacuum_error_cbarg() in the caller. The current way appears to be a bit neat than these options, so not sure if there is an advantage in changing it. Anyway, if we see any problem with that it is trivial to change it. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
