Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dilip Kumar
Subject Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Date
Msg-id CAFiTN-tAB2on9RSPFtexsxypFrShG-SAaH+9ja3Kw871tBsK0A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum  (John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 12:39 PM John Naylor
<john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 1:17 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 6:00 PM John Naylor
> > <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Attached is a rebase to fix conflicts from recent commits.
> >
> > I have reviewed v22-0022* patch and I have some comments.
> >
> > 1.
> > >It also changes to the column names max_dead_tuples and num_dead_tuples and to
> > >show the progress information in bytes.
> >
> > I think this statement needs to be rephrased.
>
> Could you be more specific?

I mean the below statement in the commit message doesn't look
grammatically correct to me.

"It also changes to the column names max_dead_tuples and
num_dead_tuples and to show the progress information in bytes."

-- 
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: vignesh C
Date:
Subject: Re: Deadlock between logrep apply worker and tablesync worker
Next
From: Peter Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply