Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Masahiko Sawada
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
Дата
Msg-id CA+fd4k6VzMT1MM1z5P-UVF0FBnqo=KTU9LjPDLMr2KSmMLg1Pg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 18:16, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:51 PM Masahiko Sawada
> <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 16:13, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > SizeOfLVDeadTuplesHeader is not defined by patch.  Do you think it
> > > makes sense to add a comment here about the calculation?
> >
> > Oops, it should be SizeOfLVDeadTuples. Attached updated version.
> >
> > I defined two macros: SizeOfLVDeadTuples is the size of LVDeadTuples
> > struct and SizeOfDeadTuples is the size including LVDeadTuples struct
> > and dead tuples.
> >
>
> I have reproduced the issue by defining MaxAllocSize as 10240000 and
> then during debugging, skipped the check related to LAZY_ALLOC_TUPLES.
> After patch, it fixes the problem for me.  I have slightly modified
> your patch to define the macros on the lines of existing macros
> TXID_SNAPSHOT_SIZE and TXID_SNAPSHOT_MAX_NXIP.  What do you think
> about it?

Thank you for updating the patch. Yeah MAXDEADTUPLES is better than
what I did in the previous version patch.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada            http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Justin Pryzby
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: doc: alter table references bogus table-specific plannerparameters
Следующее
От: Tatsuro Yamada
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: progress report for ANALYZE