Re: Buglist

From: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
To: Vivek Khera <khera(at)kcilink(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Buglist
Date: 2003-08-19 22:53:41
Message-ID: 1061333621.28374.6.camel@zeutrh9
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2003-08-19 at 12:13, Vivek Khera wrote:
> There's a big difference between "noticing that a table needs to be
> vacuumed and running it" and "automatically having the backend free a
> row as soon as we know it is eligible to be (as would normally be
> determined by vacuum)".

<talking beyond my real knowledge>
Changing Postgres to perform as mentioned above is non-trivial, it would
basicially change the entire core of the system. I think this is due to
the fact that postgres uses a non-overwriting storage manager. This has
many benefits including MVCC, the primary disadvantage is that you need
a vacuum type process
</talking beyond my real knowledge>

> One of these days when I can afford a 14-hour dump/restore, I'll
> upgrade to 7.4 and try autovacuum :-)

pg_autovacuum does with with 7.3.x, but the source is only included in
7.4. Just get the pg_autovacuum directory from contrib and use it.

Matthew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthew T. O'Connor 2003-08-19 23:56:08 Re: postmaster(s) have high load average
Previous Message Ian Barwick 2003-08-19 22:21:58 Re: Buglist

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthew T. O'Connor 2003-08-19 23:56:08 Re: postmaster(s) have high load average
Previous Message Ian Barwick 2003-08-19 22:21:58 Re: Buglist