Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2

From: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2
Date: 2007-02-27 06:26:00
Message-ID: 45E3CEF8.5060807@zeut.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
>> I'm not sure what you are saying here, are you now saying that partial
>> vacuum won't work for autovac? Or are you saying that saving state as
>> Jim is describing above won't work?
>
> I'm saying that I don't like the idea of trying to "stop on a dime" by
> saving the current contents of vacuum's dead-TID array to disk with the
> idea that we can trust those values 100% later. Saving the array is
> expensive both in runtime and code complexity, and I don't believe we
> can trust it later --- at least not without even more expensive-and-
> complex measures, such as WAL-logging every such save :-(
>
> I'm for stopping only after completing an index-cleaning pass, at the
> point where we empty the dead-TID array anyway. If you really have to
> have "stop on a dime", just kill -INT the process, accepting that you
> will have to redo your heap scan since the last restart point.

OK, so if I understand correct, a vacuum of a table with 10 indexes on
it can be interrupted 10 times, once after each index-cleaning pass?
That might have some value, especially breaking up the work required to
vacuum a large table. Or am I still not getting it?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2007-02-27 06:29:33 Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-02-27 06:20:30 Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2