On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 10:07:08PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 04:47:35PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > It's related code which I cleaned up before adding new stuff. Not essential,
> > thus separate (0002 should be backpatched).
>
> The issue just causes some extra work and that's not a bug, so applied
> without a backpatch.
Thanks
> For 0003, I think that lazy_vacuum_heap_index() can be confusing as
> those indexes are unrelated to heap. Why not naming it just
> lazy_vacuum_all_indexes()? The routine should also have a header
> describing it.
I named it so because it calls both lazy_vacuum_index
("PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE_VACUUM_INDEX") and
lazy_vacuum_heap("PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE_VACUUM_HEAP")
I suppose you don't think the other way around is better?
lazy_vacuum_index_heap
Justin
