From: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com, bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com, alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing |
Date: | 2019-04-04 00:17:43 |
Message-ID: | 20190404.091743.76975665.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello.
At Wed, 3 Apr 2019 11:55:00 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in <CA+Tgmoas581jpJ0TPaA38OhjXHgbLy8z1fuuHH7CaNkrboZJeA(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 1:32 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Attached the updated version patches including the
> > DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING part (0003).
>
> I am confused about nleft_dead_tuples. It looks like it gets
> incremented whenever we set tupgone = true, regardless of whether we
> are doing index cleanup. But if we ARE doing index cleanup then the
> dead tuple will not be left. And if we are not doing index vacuum
> then we still don't need this for anything, because tups_vacuumed is
> counting the same thing. I may be confused. But if I'm not, then I
> think this should just be ripped out, and we should only keep
> nleft_dead_itemids.
tups_vacuumed is including heap_page_prune()ed tuples, which
aren't counted as "tupgone".
> As far as VacOptTernaryValue, I think it would be safer to change this
> so that VACOPT_TERNARY_DEFAULT = 0. That way palloc0 will fill in the
> value that people are likely to want by default, which makes it less
> likely that people will accidentally write future code that doesn't
> clean up indexes.
It's convincing. My compalint was enabled=0 and disabled=1 is
confusing so I'm fine with default=0, disabled=1, enabled=2.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Raymond Martin | 2019-04-04 00:19:28 | RE: minimizing pg_stat_statements performance overhead |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2019-04-04 00:14:07 | Re: Inadequate executor locking of indexes |