On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 7:16 AM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 12:30 PM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > > Attached is v14. > > This has stopped applying due to conflicts with nearby work on VACUUM > from Tom. So I attached a new revision, v15, just to make CFTester > green again. > > I didn't have time to incorporate any of the feedback from Matthias > just yet. That will have to wait until v16. > I have looked into the patch set, I think 0001 looks good to me about 0002 I have a few questions, 0003 I haven't yet looked at
1. + /* + * Finally, set tableagefrac for VACUUM. This can come from either XID or + * XMID table age (whichever is greater currently). + */ + XIDFrac = (double) (nextXID - cutoffs->relfrozenxid) / + ((double) freeze_table_age + 0.5); I think '(nextXID - cutoffs->relfrozenxid) / freeze_table_age' should be the actual fraction right? What is the point of adding 0.5 to the divisor? If there is a logical reason, maybe we can explain in the comments. 2. While looking into the logic of 'lazy_scan_strategy', I think the idea looks very good but the only thing is that we have kept eager freeze and eager scan completely independent. Don't you think that if a table is chosen for an eager scan then we should force the eager freezing as well? -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
