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

Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables
Date: 2013-01-31 19:58:13
Message-ID: 18884.1359662293@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Instead, what I propose (and is not really in the patch), as a
> backpatchable item, is an approach in which the functions to compute
> each rel's Browne strength and sort are hooks.  Normal behavior is not
> to sort at all, as currently, and sites that have a problem with the
> current random order can install a custom module that provide hooks to
> change ordering as they see fit.  So behavior won't change for people
> who have no problem today.

Meh.  I'm not really thrilled with adding hooks (that presumably we'd
have to preserve forever) to solve a short-term problem.  Nor does this
sound hugely convenient for users with the problem, anyway.  Do we even
know for sure that anyone would create such modules?

I think we should just fix it as best we can in HEAD, and then anyone
who thinks the risk/reward ratio is favorable can back-patch that fix
into a private build.

			regards, tom lane


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2013-01-31 20:07:07
Subject: Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2013-01-31 19:55:06
Subject: Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables

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