On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 6:14 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Without offering an opinion on this particular implementation choice,
> +1 for the idea of trying to make the table-with-indexes and the
> table-without-indexes cases work in ways that will feel similar to the
> user. Tables without indexes are probably rare in practice, but if
> some behaviors are implemented for one case and not the other, it will
> probably be confusing. One thought here is that it might help to try
> to write documentation for whatever behavior you choose. If it's hard
> to document without weasel-words, maybe it's not the best approach.
I have found a way to do this that isn't too painful, a little like
the VACUUM_FSM_EVERY_PAGES thing.
I've also found a way to further simplify the table-without-indexes
case: make it behave like a regular two-pass/has-indexes VACUUM with
regard to visibility map stuff when the page doesn't need a call to
lazy_vacuum_heap() (because there are no LP_DEAD items to set
LP_UNUSED on the page following pruning). But when it does call
lazy_vacuum_heap(), the call takes care of everything for
lazy_scan_heap(), which just continues to the next page due to
considering prunestate to have been "invalidated" by the call to
lazy_vacuum_heap(). So there is absolutely minimal special case code
for the table-without-indexes case now.
BTW I removed all of the lazy_scan_heap() utility functions from the
second patch in my working copy of the patch series. You were right
about that -- they weren't useful. We should just have the pruning
wrapper function I've called lazy_scan_prune(), not any of the others.
We only need one local variable in the lazy_vacuum_heap() that isn't
either the prune state set/returned by lazy_scan_prune(), or generic
stuff like a Buffer variable.
--
Peter Geoghegan
