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
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 deals with TIDs that might point to
remaining heap tuples with sto
16 matches
Mail list logo
