Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL
Date: 2009-09-17 14:45:23
Message-ID: 10524.1253198723@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 09:45 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Making the code more complicated so that it's easier to tune something
>> that isn't very hard to tune anyway doesn't seem like a good
>> trade-off.

> I think that just making sure that pessimal cases don't happen should be
> enough, maybe just check for too-much-time-in-transaction after each N
> pages touched.

If people think that a runtime limit is the most natural way to control
this, I don't see a reason not to do it that way. I would envision
checking the elapsed time once per page or few pages; shouldn't be a
huge amount of effort or complication ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-09-17 14:50:25 Re: generic copy options
Previous Message Emmanuel Cecchet 2009-09-17 14:44:28 Re: generic copy options