>>> > I think this will work, but not sure if there is a merit to deviate
>>> > from what btree does to handle this case. One thing I find slightly
>>> > awkward in hash_xlog_vacuum_get_latestRemovedXid() is that you are
>>> > using a number of tuples registered as part of fixed data
>>> > (xl_hash_vacuum_one_page) to traverse the data registered as buf data.
>>> > I think it will be better if we register offsets also in fixed part of
>>> > data as we are doing btree case.
>>
>> Agreed. I have made the changes accordingly. Please check attached v2 patch.
>>
>
> Changes look good to me. I think you can modify the comments in
> structure xl_hash_vacuum_one_page to mention "TARGET OFFSET NUMBERS
> FOLLOW AT THE END"
>
Added the comment in xl_hash_vacuum_one_page structure.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> Also another small point in this regard, do we need two separate
>>> variables to track number of deleted items in below code? I think one
>>> variable is sufficient.
>>>
>>> _hash_vacuum_one_page()
>>> {
>>> ..
>>> deletable[ndeletable++] = offnum;
>>> tuples_removed += 1;--
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I think 'ndeletable' alone should be fine.
>>
>
> I think it would have been probably okay to use *int* for ntuples as
> that matches with what you are actually assigning in the function.
okay, corrected it. Attached is newer version of patch.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
