| From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Buglist |
| Date: | 2003-08-22 16:10:19 |
| Message-ID: | 1061568619.4943.12.camel@zeutrh9 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 10:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> Right. One big question mark in my mind about these "partial vacuum"
> proposals is whether they'd still allow adequate FSM information to be
> maintained. If VACUUM isn't looking at most of the pages, there's no
> very good way to acquire info about where there's free space.
Well, pg_autovacuum really needs to be looking at the FSM anyway. It
could look at the FSM, and choose to to do a vacuum normal when there
the amount of FSM data becomes inadequate. Of course I'm not sure how
you would differentiate a busy table with "inadequate" FSM data and an
inactive table that doesn't even register in the FSM. Perhaps you would
still need to consult the stats system.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2003-08-22 16:18:02 | Re: [HACKERS] Buglist |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-08-22 16:07:52 | Re: Single-file DBs WAS: Need concrete "Why Postgres |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2003-08-22 16:18:02 | Re: [HACKERS] Buglist |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-08-22 16:07:52 | Re: Single-file DBs WAS: Need concrete "Why Postgres |