Hi Andrey, thank you for taking a look and for the review!
On 15.03.2026 20:18, Andrey Borodin wrote:
On 13 Mar 2026, at 18:04, Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru> wrote:
I've decided to take a look into v31.
Overall idea of tracking VM dynamics seems good to me.
Thank you!
But the column naming for rev_all_visible_pages and rev_all_frozen_pages
seems strange to me. I've skimmed the thread but could not figure out what
"rev_" stands for. Revisions? Revolutions? Reviews?
We meant "revision", but after looking at our documentation I realized
the confusion - the term is not explained there.
I've renamed them to visible_pages_vm_cleared and frozen_pages_vm_cleared.
Does this naming make more sense?
Is there a reason why you break "SELECT * FROM pg_stat_all_tables" for
an existing software? IMO even if we want these columns in this exact view
- they ought to be appended to the end of the column list.
No reason, I fixed this. Thanks for pointing it out.
Some nits about the code.
my $interval = 0.015;
sleep($interval); <--- sleep takes integer AFAIK?
Maybe just use poll_query_until()?
$start_time seems unused.
I don't think src/test/recovery/t/ is good for the test. It has nothing to
do with recovery. Maybe somewhere in src/test/modules?
I reconsidered the test and moved it to the regression tests (at the end of vacuum.sql).
With pg_stat_force_next_flush() they seem stable enough without using waiting functions.
This change is not needed at all:
- proargtypes => 'oid8 int8', prosrc => 'hashoid8extended' },
+ proargtypes => 'oid8 int8', prosrc => 'hashoid8extended' },
s/'statistics: number of times the all-visible pages in the visibility map
was removed for pages of table'/'statistics: number of times the all-visible
pages in the visibility map were cleared for pages of this table'/g
I would appreciate some braces in
if (map[mapByte] >> mapOffset & flags & VISIBILITYMAP_ALL_VISIBLE)
Probably the code is correct, but I write in languages with different parsers
and do not trust in grammar priorities. Is it something like following?
if (map[mapByte] & ((VISIBILITYMAP_ALL_VISIBLE & flags) << mapOffset))
We check (map[mapByte] & mask) in this if statement which is flags << mapOffset btw...
Fixed.
That's all what catches my eye this time. Thank you!
Thank you for the review!
-----------
Best regards,
Alena Rybakina
