Re: Rename dead_tuples to dead_items in vacuumlazy.c - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Masahiko Sawada
Subject Re: Rename dead_tuples to dead_items in vacuumlazy.c
Date
Msg-id CAD21AoDm38Em0bvRqeQKr4HPvOj65Y8cUgCP4idMk39iaLrxyw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Rename dead_tuples to dead_items in vacuumlazy.c  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: Rename dead_tuples to dead_items in vacuumlazy.c
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:00 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:48 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The patch renames dead tuples to dead items at some places and  to
> > dead TIDs at some places.
>
> > I think it's more consistent if we change it to one side. I prefer "dead items".
>
> I just pushed a version of the patch that still uses both terms when
> talking about dead_items.

Thanks! I'll change my parallel vacuum refactoring patch accordingly.

Regarding the commit, I think that there still is one place in
lazyvacuum.c where we can change "dead tuples” to "dead items”:

    /*
     * Allocate the space for dead tuples.  Note that this handles parallel
     * VACUUM initialization as part of allocating shared memory space used
     * for dead_items.
     */
    dead_items_alloc(vacrel, params->nworkers);
    dead_items = vacrel->dead_items;

Also, the commit doesn't change both PROGRESS_VACUUM_MAX_DEAD_TUPLES
and PROGRESS_VACUUM_NUM_DEAD_TUPLES. Did you leave them on purpose?

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Unifying VACUUM VERBOSE and log_autovacuum_min_duration output
Next
From: "tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: row filtering for logical replication