On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 11:15 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 10:22 AM Melanie Plageman
> <melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It seems a better solution would be to find a way to document it or
> > phrase it clearly in the log. It is true that these pages were set
> > all-frozen in the VM. It is just that some of them were later removed.
> > And we don't know which ones those are. Is there a way to make this
> > clear?
>
> Probably not, but I don't think that it's worth worrying about. ISTM
> that it's inevitable that somebody might get confused whenever we
> expose implementation details such as these. This particular example
> doesn't seem particularly concerning to me.
>
> Fundamentally, the information that you're showing is a precisely
> accurate account of the work performed by VACUUM. If somebody is
> bothered by the fact that we're setting VM bits for pages that just
> get truncated anyway, then they're bothered by the reality of what
> VACUUM does -- and not by the instrumentation itself.
Makes sense to me. Though, I'm looking at it as a developer.
> Why not just reuse visibilitymap_count for this (and have it count the
> number of all-frozen pages when called by heap_vacuum_rel)? That'll
> change the nature of the information shown, but that might actually
> make it slightly more useful.
I'm biased because I want the count of pages newly set all-frozen in
the VM for another patch. You think exposing the total number of
all-frozen pages at the end of the vacuum is more useful to users?
- Melanie
