Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

AW: AW: AW: AW: AW: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples

From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: AW: AW: AW: AW: AW: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples
Date: 2000-07-27 14:22:41
Message-ID: 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA68796336803A@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > But yes the rename log entries (only those) would need to be 
> > written immediately. Is this a performance issue? I guess not.
> 
> Two fsyncs per rename is probably not a performance killer, but you'd
> have to also fsync log entries for file creates and deletes, which
> might be a bigger deal.

I am not sure, but I don't think those are necessary,
only if you want to guarantee no leftover files on backend abort.
I agree that create/delete would be critical to performance.

Andreas

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-07-27 15:26:34
Subject: Re: Loading binary data into the database
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-07-27 14:17:29
Subject: Re: Loading binary data into the database

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group