On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 4:42 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 7:00 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Thanks! I'll change my parallel vacuum refactoring patch accordingly.
>
> Thanks again for working on that.
>
> > Regarding the commit, I think that there still is one place in
> >
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 7:00 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thanks! I'll change my parallel vacuum refactoring patch accordingly.
Thanks again for working on that.
> Regarding the commit, I think that there still is one place in
> lazyvacuum.c where we can change "dead tuples” to "dead items”:
>
>
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:00 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:48 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > The patch renames dead tuples to dead items at some places and to
> > dead TIDs at some places.
>
> > I think it's more consistent if we change it to one side. I prefer "dead
>
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:48 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> The patch renames dead tuples to dead items at some places and to
> dead TIDs at some places.
> I think it's more consistent if we change it to one side. I prefer "dead
> items".
I just pushed a version of the patch that still uses both
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 9:53 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> OK, this makes a lot more sense. I wasn't aware of ae7291ac (and I
> wasn't aware of the significance of 8523492d either, but that's not
> really relevant here.)
Thanks for hearing me out about the significance of 8523492d.
Having the righ
On 2021-Nov-24, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> TIDs (ItemPointerData structs) are of course not the same thing as
> line pointers (ItemIdData structs). There is a tendency to refer to
> the latter as "item pointers" all the same, which was confusing. I
> personally corrected/normalized this in commit ae
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 7:16 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Sorry to reply to myself, but I realized that I forgot to return to the
> main point of this thread. If we agree that "an LP_DEAD item pointer
> does not point to any item" (an assertion that gives a precise meaning
> to both those terms), t
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 9:51 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Nov-24, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Hmm. I think in my model an item and an item pointer and a line
> > pointer are all the same thing, but a TID is different. When I talk
> > about a TID, I mean the location of an item pointer, not its co
On 2021-Nov-24, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Nov-24, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> > Hmm. I think in my model an item and an item pointer and a line
> > pointer are all the same thing, but a TID is different. When I talk
> > about a TID, I mean the location of an item pointer, not its contents.
> > S
On 2021-Nov-24, Robert Haas wrote:
> Hmm. I think in my model an item and an item pointer and a line
> pointer are all the same thing, but a TID is different. When I talk
> about a TID, I mean the location of an item pointer, not its contents.
> So a TID is what tells me that I want block 5 and th
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 9:37 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> My mental model is that "tuple" (in the narrow context of heap vacuum)
> is the variable-size on-disk representation of a row in a page; "line
> pointer" is the fixed-size struct at the bottom of each page that
> contains location, size and f
On 2021-Nov-24, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 7:48 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I think it's more consistent if we change it to one side. I prefer
> > "dead items".
>
> I feel like "items" is quite a generic word, so I think I would prefer
> TIDs. But it's probably not a big deal
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 7:48 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I think it's more consistent if we change it to one side. I prefer "dead
> items".
I feel like "items" is quite a generic word, so I think I would prefer
TIDs. But it's probably not a big deal.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 2:46 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> Attached patch performs polishing within vacuumlazy.c, as follow-up
> work to the refactoring work in Postgres 14. This mainly consists of
> changing references of dead tuples to dead items, which reflects the
> fact that VACUUM no longer
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 11:16 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> Attached patch performs polishing within vacuumlazy.c, as follow-up
> work to the refactoring work in Postgres 14. This mainly consists of
> changing references of dead tuples to dead items, which reflects the
> fact that VACUUM no longer
15 matches
Mail list logo
