On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thank you for updating the patch.
>>>
>>> Whole patch looks good to me except for the following one comment.
>>> This is the final comment from me.
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * lazy_tid_reaped() -- is a particular tid deletable?
>>> *
>>> * This has the right signature to be an IndexBulkDeleteCallback.
>>> *
>>> * Assumes dead_tuples array is in sorted order.
>>> */
>>> static bool
>>> lazy_tid_reaped(ItemPointer itemptr, void *state)
>>> {
>>> LVRelStats *vacrelstats = (LVRelStats *) state;
>>>
>>> You might want to update the comment of lazy_tid_reaped() as well.
>>
>> I don't see the mismatch with reality there (if you consider
>> "dead_tples array" in the proper context, that is, the multiarray).
>>
>> What in particular do you find out of sync there?
>
> The current lazy_tid_reaped just find a tid from a tid array using
> bsearch but in your patch lazy_tid_reaped handles multiple tid arrays
> and processing method become complicated. So I thought it's better to
> add the description of this function.
Alright, updated with some more remarks that seemed relevant
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers