Re: small improvement of the elapsed time for truncating heap in vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Masahiko Sawada
Subject Re: small improvement of the elapsed time for truncating heap in vacuum
Date
Msg-id CA+fd4k7MA3iFQr4qzvaQ_HH_HJdYgvxsTuox5pFcJATnL3R3og@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: small improvement of the elapsed time for truncating heap in vacuum  (Kasahara Tatsuhito <kasahara.tatsuhito@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: small improvement of the elapsed time for truncating heap in vacuum
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 12:44, Kasahara Tatsuhito
<kasahara.tatsuhito@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 4:50 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Regarding the patch, isn't it better to put pg_rusage_init() at the
> > top of do loop block? If we do this, as a side-effect, we can get
> > rid of pg_rusage_init() at the top of lazy_truncate_heap().
> Thanks for your reply.
> Yeah, it makes sense.
>
> Attached patch moves pg_rusage_init() to the top of do-loop-block.

+1 to reset for each truncation loops.

For the patch, we can put also the declaration of ru0 into the loop.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada            http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: error context for vacuum to include block number
Next
From: Takashi Menjo
Date:
Subject: RE: [PoC] Non-volatile WAL buffer