| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>,PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Questions/Observations related to Gist vacuum |
| Date: | 2019-10-16 13:51:49 |
| Message-ID: | 69EF7B88-F3E7-4E09-824D-694CF39E5683@iki.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 16 October 2019 12:57:03 CEST, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 7:13 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
>wrote:
>> All things
>> considered, I'm not sure which is better.
>
>Yeah, this is a tough call to make, but if we can allow it to delete
>the pages in bulkdelete conditionally for parallel vacuum workers,
>then it would be better.
Yeah, if it's needed for parallel vacuum, maybe that tips the scale.
Hopefully, multi-pass vacuums are rare in practice. And we should lift the current 1 GB limit on the dead TID array, replacing it with something more compact and expandable, to make multi-pass vacuums even more rare. So I don't think we need to jump through many hoops to optimize the multi-pass case.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-10-16 14:33:43 | Re: BUG #16045: vacuum_db crash and illegal memory alloc after pg_upgrade from PG11 to PG12 |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-10-16 13:41:17 | Re: BUG #16045: vacuum_db crash and illegal memory alloc after pg_upgrade from PG11 to PG12 |