On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > Alright, updated with some more remarks that seemed relevant
Thank you for updating the patch. The patch looks good to me. There is no review comment from me. 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