Re: add PROCESS_MAIN to VACUUM - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Melanie Plageman
Subject Re: add PROCESS_MAIN to VACUUM
Date
Msg-id CAAKRu_ZJMFrO_tspzoX43h9NyEFS1nS438MoS3Yv7JxK3=jFPw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: add PROCESS_MAIN to VACUUM  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: add PROCESS_MAIN to VACUUM  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 3:27 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 02:40:09PM -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > I noticed in vacuum_rel() in vacuum.c where table_relation_vacuum() is
> > called, 4211fbd84 changes the else into an else if [1]. I understand
> > after reading the commit and re-reading the code why that is now, but I
> > was initially confused. I was thinking it might be nice to have a
> > comment mentioning why there is no else case here (i.e. that the main
> > table relation will be vacuumed on the else if branch).
>
> This was a hack to avoid another level of indentation for that whole block
> of code, but based on your comment, it might be better to just surround
> this entire section with an "if (params->options & VACOPT_PROCESS_MAIN)"
> check.  WDYT?

I think that would be clearer.

- Melanie



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Gregory Stark (as CFM)"
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal: possibility to read dumped table's name from file
Next
From: "Gregory Stark (as CFM)"
Date:
Subject: Re: On login trigger: take three