Re: Reviewing freeze map code

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Amit Kapila
Тема Re: Reviewing freeze map code
Дата
Msg-id CAA4eK1+hzefucHUgTKVGvRUFmZDutZf=dzKTaRsDeCbdtQ810g@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Reviewing freeze map code  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Reviewing freeze map code  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for implementing the patch.
>
> I've not test it deeply but here are some comments.
> This check tool only checks if the frozen page has live-unfrozen tuple.
> That is, it doesn't care in case where the all-frozen page mistakenly
> has dead-frozen tuple.
>

Do you mean to say that we should have a check for ItemIdIsDead() and then if item is found to be dead, then add it to array of non_frozen items?  If so, earlier I thought we might not need this check as we are already using heap_tuple_needs_eventual_freeze(), but now again looking at it, it seems wise to check for dead items separately as those won't be covered by other check.

>
> +       /* Clean up. */
> +       if (vmbuffer != InvalidBuffer)
> +               ReleaseBuffer(vmbuffer);
>
> I think that we should use BufferIsValid() here.
>

We can use BufferIsValid() as well, but I am trying to be consistent with nearby code, refer collect_visibility_data().  We can change at all places together if people prefer that way.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Reviewing freeze map code
Следующее
От: Noah Misch
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered