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

Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
Cc: "'Hiroshi Inoue'" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples
Date: 2000-07-27 14:03:42
Message-ID: 7982.964706622@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
> But yes the rename log entries (only those) would need to be 
> written immediately. Is this a performance issue? I guess not.

Two fsyncs per rename is probably not a performance killer, but you'd
have to also fsync log entries for file creates and deletes, which
might be a bigger deal.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-07-27 14:17:29
Subject: Re: Loading binary data into the database
Previous:From: Jeffery CollinsDate: 2000-07-27 13:55:02
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Some questions on user defined types and functions.

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