On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 10:38 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 10:22 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 7:19 PM Andrey M. Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 4 Jun 2024, at 00:26, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you! Vacuum enhancement is a really good step forward, and this small change would help a lot of
observabilitytools.
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 4 Jun 2024, at 00:49, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Can we rename this to num_dead_item_ids (or something similar) in
> > > > passing?
> > >
> > > I do not insist, but many tools will have to adapt to this change [0,1]. However, most of tools will have to deal
withremoved max_dead_tuples anyway [2], so this is not that big problem.
> >
> > True, this incompatibility would not be a big problem.
> >
> > num_dead_item_ids seems good to me. I've updated the patch that
> > incorporated the comment from Álvaro[1].
>
> I'm going to push the v2 patch in a few days if there is no further comment.
>
I was about to push the patch but let me confirm just in case: is it
okay to bump the catversion even after post-beta1? This patch
reintroduces a previously-used column to pg_stat_progress_vacuum so it
requires bumping the catversion.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
