Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Amit Kapila
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
Дата
Msg-id CAA4eK1LjHouE4RaP7QToLY7k7L7fxafMb9J5G3bJzNvNT-ejag@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum  (Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum  (Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
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?

Andres, see if you get a chance to run the test again with the
attached patch, otherwise, I will commit it tomorrow morning.

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

Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Maciek Sakrejda
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Duplicate Workers entries in some EXPLAIN plans
Следующее
От: Juan José Santamaría Flecha
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PATCH] Windows port, fix some resources leaks