Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing
Date: 2019-05-02 15:32:43
Message-ID: 20190502153243.mxgvircqy7avlw7t@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-05-02 11:09:10 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> If I understand correctly, your first proposal amounts to redefining
> tups_vacuumed to count #2 rather than #1, and your second proposal
> amounts to making tups_vacuumed count #1 + #2 rather than #1. I
> suggest a third option: have two counters.

+1

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-05-02 15:38:51 Re: Why is infinite_recurse test suddenly failing?
Previous Message Andres Freund 2019-05-02 15:31:07 Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6