Re: Proposal for background vacuum full/cluster

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal for background vacuum full/cluster
Date: 2005-04-21 05:06:13
Message-ID: 11468.1114059973@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> I'm not sure how different it is from vacuum full, though the main idea
> is that instead of locking the table you instead work in smaller pieces
> and don't block anything other than other updates.

We don't have any support for locking sections of a table larger than
a page, so I'm not clear on how the above could be made to work.

But in any case, I wasn't talking about vacuum full. I was thinking of
the total picture in a normal vacuum cycle:

1. vacuum cleans out dead tuples and records the space in FSM
2. ordinary inserts and updates use the space shown in FSM
3. next vacuum cleans out the space freed, and shortens the table
if it can

I believe that step 2 preferentially uses space closer to the front
of the table, so I think that what you are proposing already happens
naturally.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paesold 2005-04-21 06:00:49 Re: Problem with PITR recovery
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-04-21 04:54:38 Re: Postgres: pg_hba.conf, md5, pg_shadow, encrypted passwords