Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem
Date: 2018-04-06 20:33:14
Message-ID: 20180406203314.4qn2hog2fc6exxod@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Claudio Freire wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:

> > FWIW I liked the idea of having this abstraction possibly do other
> > things -- for instance to vacuum brin indexes you'd like to mark index
> > tuples as "containing tuples that were removed" and eventually
> > re-summarize the range. With the current interface we cannot do that,
> > because vacuum expects brin vacuuming to ask for each heap tuple "is
> > this tid dead?" and of course we don't have a list of tids to ask for.
> > So if we can ask instead "how many dead tuples does this block contain?"
> > brin vacuuming will be much happier.
>
> I don't think either patch gives you that.
>
> The bulkdelete interface is part of the indexam and unlikely to change
> in this patch.

I'm sure you're correct. I was just saying that with the abstract
interface it is easier to implement what I suggest as a follow-on patch.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Kuzmenkov 2018-04-06 20:40:59 Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-04-06 20:29:58 Re: Documentation for bootstrap data conversion