Michael Paquier wrote:
> Sure. However do we need to introduce this much complication as a
> goal for this patch though whose goal is just to provide hints about
> the progress of the work done by vacuumlo?
Yeah, I went off on a tangent when realizing that ~500 lines of C
client-side code in vacuumlo could be turned into ~50 lines of
plpgsql in a block.
That was not meant as on objection to the patch
(besides I followed the plpgsql approach and got disappointed with the
performance of lo_unlink() in a loop compared to the client-side
equivalent, so I won't bother -hackers with this idea anymore, until I
figure out why it's not faster and if I can do something about it).
One comment about the patch:
+ long to_delete = 0;
...
+ to_delete = strtol(PQcmdTuples(res), NULL, 10);
I believe the maximum number of large objects is almost 2^32, and as a
count above 2^31 may not fit into a signed long, shouldn't we use
an unsigned long instead? This would also apply to the preexisting
"deleted" variable.
Best regards,
--
Daniel Vérité
PostgreSQL-powered mailer: http://www.manitou-mail.org
Twitter: @DanielVerite