Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 07:49:44 -0700
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>,
	Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	"Andrey M. Borodin" <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>
Subject: Re: Confine vacuum skip logic to lazy_scan_skip
Message-ID: <20240707144944.58.nmisch@google.com>
References: 
 <CAAKRu_b9kbXeK05_jTqBayhsRNeruyWHD6i8RPWoVtGxSV4D9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALDaNm3y-kxuJzgqHrJUVO-B=JPE3tXJazoowEkKL745aZH6Zw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_ZuYsf4MNGzm7_KvG0SKsu-EtYRhFHy2x3q0heX8KLMTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_bQgf4e9OveCQX++zTEJLKbZbqLeapA7SNkNuMjxcCO1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240306234733.nd4a636colxkgq2e@liskov>
 <CAAKRu_aiaf+CufVA5Rrksz4Lw2fvZ3M-OgdBZ8WpzvYoQY96MQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hUKGKHb3i8Wy72VCKZGA2B5djoj7tAzYAzbeS=Gwr_SdhgRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_byDppRvNJ+p5kq-SmXZDQuL6L8N6D06pHbO6WnBnanWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hUKGLY4Q4ZY4f1rvnFtv6+PkjNf8MejdPkcju3Qii9DYqqcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_bbkmwAzSBgnezancgJeXrQZXy4G4kBTd+5=cr86H5yew@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAKRu_bbkmwAzSBgnezancgJeXrQZXy4G4kBTd+5=cr86H5yew@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.12 (2023-09-09)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240707144944.58.nmisch%40google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 05:36:25PM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> I've attached a WIP v11 streaming vacuum patch set here that is
> rebased over master (by Thomas), so that I could add a CF entry for
> it. It still has the problem with the extra WAL write and fsync calls
> investigated by Thomas above. Thomas has some work in progress doing
> streaming write-behind to alleviate the issues with the buffer access
> strategy and streaming reads. When he gets a version of that ready to
> share, he will start a new "Streaming Vacuum" thread.

To avoid reviewing the wrong patch, I'm writing to verify the status here.
This is Needs Review in the commitfest.  I think one of these two holds:

1. Needs Review is valid.
2. It's actually Waiting on Author.  You're commissioning a review of the
   future-thread patch, not this one.

If it's (1), given the WIP marking, what is the scope of the review you seek?
I'm guessing performance is out of scope; what else is in or out of scope?