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

Re: Dead Space Map for vacuum

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Dead Space Map for vacuum
Date: 2006-12-29 21:41:11
Message-ID: 17760.1167428471@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 10:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Counterexample: table in which all tuples exceed half a page.

> Current FSM code will ignore those too, if they are less than the
> average size of the tuple so far requested. Thats a pretty wierd
> counterexample, even if it is a case that needs handling.

Better read it again.  The number that's passed to the FSM is the
free space *after* vacuuming, which in this scenario will be
BLCKSZ-less-page-header.  This case is not broken now, but it will
be if we adopt your proposal.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-12-29 21:43:24
Subject: Re: Load distributed checkpoint
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2006-12-29 21:20:51
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Recent SIGSEGV failures in buildfarm HEAD

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