Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 10:27:12 -0600
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: error context for vacuum to include block number
Message-ID: <20191215162712.GZ2082@telsasoft.com>
References: <20191211165425.4ewww2s5k5cafi4l@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20191211153353.GA23008@alvherre.pgsql>
 <20191213030831.GT2082@telsasoft.com>
 <20191213132850.GA103520@paquier.xyz>
 <20191213224735.GY2082@telsasoft.com>
 <20191215130708.GA19063@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191215130708.GA19063@paquier.xyz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 10:07:08PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 04:47:35PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > It's related code which I cleaned up before adding new stuff.  Not essential,
> > thus separate (0002 should be backpatched).
> 
> The issue just causes some extra work and that's not a bug, so applied
> without a backpatch.

Thanks

> For 0003, I think that lazy_vacuum_heap_index() can be confusing as
> those indexes are unrelated to heap.  Why not naming it just
> lazy_vacuum_all_indexes()?  The routine should also have a header
> describing it.

I named it so because it calls both lazy_vacuum_index
("PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE_VACUUM_INDEX") and
lazy_vacuum_heap("PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE_VACUUM_HEAP")

I suppose you don't think the other way around is better?
lazy_vacuum_index_heap

Justin