Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Hiroki Kataoka" <kataoka(at)interwiz(dot)jp> writes:
>> I think there is no problem. Bloating will make pages including the
>> unnecessary area which will not be accessed. Soon, those pages will be
>> registered into DSM.
> Except the whole point of the DSM is to let us vacuum those pages *before*
> that happens...
You are right. However, expecting perfection will often lose
performance. Delaying processing to some extent leads to performance.
Even if hot page is not vacuumed, it does not mean generating dead
tuples boundlessly. About one hot page, the quantity of dead tuple
which continues existing unnecessarily is at most 1 page or its extent.
Also that page is soon registered into DSM by checkpoint like fail-safe.
Isn't some compromise need as first version of DSM vacuum?
Hiroki Kataoka <kataoka(at)interwiz(dot)jp>
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-04-24 07:38:47|
|Subject: Re: BUG #3242: FATAL: could not unlock semaphore: error code 298 |
|Previous:||From: Marcin Waldowski||Date: 2007-04-24 07:10:12|
|Subject: Re: BUG #3242: FATAL: could not unlock semaphore: error code
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD||Date: 2007-04-24 08:08:44|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Full page writes improvement, code update|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-04-24 04:37:20|
|Subject: Re: BUG #3245: PANIC: failed to re-find shared loc k o b j ect |