On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@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.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
