Re: Visibility map, partial vacuums

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Visibility map, partial vacuums
Date: 2009-01-15 15:48:53
Message-ID: 200901151548.n0FFmr204820@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Also, is anything being done about the concern about 'vacuum storm'
> >> explained below?
> >
> > I'm interested too.
>
> The additional "vacuum_freeze_table_age" (as I'm now calling it) setting
> I discussed in a later thread should alleviate that somewhat. When a
> table is autovacuumed, the whole table is scanned to freeze tuples if
> it's older than vacuum_freeze_table_age, and relfrozenxid is advanced.
> When different tables reach the autovacuum threshold at different times,
> they will also have their relfrozenxids set to different values. And in
> fact no anti-wraparound vacuum is needed.
>
> That doesn't help with read-only or insert-only tables, but that's not a
> new problem.

OK, is this targeted for 8.4?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-01-15 15:51:35 Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2009-01-15 15:36:29 Re: tuplestore potential performance problem