freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )
Date: 2009-08-13 21:33:00
Message-ID: 1250199180.24981.35.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

[ moving to -hackers ]

If this topic has been discussed previously, please point me to the
earlier threads.

Why aren't we more opportunistic about freezing tuples? For instance, if
we already have a dirty buffer in cache, we should be more aggressive
about freezing those tuples than freezing tuples on disk.

I looked at the code, and it looks like if we freeze one tuple on the
page during VACUUM, we mark it dirty. Wouldn't that be a good
opportunity to freeze all the other tuples on the page that we can?

Or, perhaps when the bgwriter is flushing dirty buffers, it can look for
opportunities to set hint bits or freeze tuples.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-08-13 21:33:40 Getting rid of the flat authentication file
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2009-08-13 21:15:19 Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Carey 2009-08-13 21:42:41 Re: Memory usage of writer process
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2009-08-13 21:15:19 Re: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m?