On 9/17/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Meanwhile I've started looking at the vacuum code, and it seems that v16
has made that part of the patch significantly worse. VACUUM will fail
to count tuples that are removed by pruning, which seems like something
it should report somehow.
I understand. I did not give real weight to it because I thought we
anyways remove tuples elsewhere during pruning. But I agree
that the heap_page_prune_defrag in the VACUUM code path
is doing so on behalf of vacuum and hence we should credit
that to VACUUM.
And you've introduced a race condition: as
I just mentioned, it's perfectly possible that the second call of
HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum gets a different answer than what the prune
code saw, especially in lazy VACUUM (in VACUUM FULL it'd suggest that
someone released lock early ... but we do have to cope with that).
Hmm.. you are right. Those extra notices I added are completely
unnecessary and wrong.
The comments you added seem to envision a more invasive patch that gets
rid of the second HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum pass altogether, but I'm not
sure how practical that is, and am not real inclined to try to do it
right now anyway ...
I agree. I just wanted to leave a hint there that such a possibility exists
if someone really wants to optimize, now or later.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB
http://www.enterprisedb.com
