On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 3:34 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 12:01 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > I've attached the updated patches for master and backbranches (v17 and
> > v18). Please review these patches.
>
> All look good to me. One nitpick that is up to you if you wan
On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 12:01 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> I've attached the updated patches for master and backbranches (v17 and
> v18). Please review these patches.
All look good to me. One nitpick that is up to you if you want to
change: the comment
* Return the number of tuples deleted from
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 10:20 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 6:59 PM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> >
> > So, I think we should commit the fix you proposed.
I agree with your analysis.
> >
> > The only question I have left is implementation: should we have
> > ndeleted as a
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 10:20 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 6:59 PM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> >
> > So, I think we should commit the fix you proposed.
> >
> > The only question I have left is implementation: should we have
> > ndeleted as an output parameter of lazy_sca
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 6:59 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> So, I think we should commit the fix you proposed.
>
> The only question I have left is implementation: should we have
> ndeleted as an output parameter of lazy_scan_prune() or have
> lazy_scan_prune() return it (instead of void)?
>
> In
On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 6:22 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> Reviewing your patch, I think there might be an issue still. You
> replaced has_lpdead_items with ndeleted. While ndeleted will count
> those items we set LP_UNUSED (which is what we want), it also counts
> LP_NORMAL items that vacuum sets
On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 8:15 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> I think that this issue presents since commit c120550edb86 but this
> commit optimized the vacuum work for tables with no indexes and wasn't
> intended to change the FSM vacuum behavior for such tables. Therefore,
> I think we can fix the F
On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 11:52 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 8:30 AM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 6:07 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm going to push this fix up to HEAD and v17 early next week, unless
> > > there is no objection.
>
On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 8:30 AM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 6:07 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > I'm going to push this fix up to HEAD and v17 early next week, unless
> > there is no objection.
>
> I started studying this again looking back at the thread associated
> with
On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 6:07 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> I'm going to push this fix up to HEAD and v17 early next week, unless
> there is no objection.
I started studying this again looking back at the thread associated
with commit c120550edb86. There was actually a long discussion about
how thi
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 3:29 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 3:12 PM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 6:03 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > With commit c120550edb86, If we got the cleanup lock on the page,
> > > lazy_scan_prune() marks dea
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 3:12 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 6:03 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > With commit c120550edb86, If we got the cleanup lock on the page,
> > lazy_scan_prune() marks dead item IDs directly to LP_UNUSED. So the
> > following check with has_lpdead_
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 6:03 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> With commit c120550edb86, If we got the cleanup lock on the page,
> lazy_scan_prune() marks dead item IDs directly to LP_UNUSED. So the
> following check with has_lpdead_items made the periodic FSM vacuum in
> the one-pass strategy vacuum
13 matches
Mail list logo
