| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies |
| Date: | 2021-04-06 00:00:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20210406000031.j2wzn6ipaebkad74@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-04-05 16:53:58 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> REL_13_STABLE will need to be considered separately. I still haven't
> figured out how this ever appeared to work for this long. The
> vac_strategy/bstrategy state simply wasn't propagated at all.
What do you mean with "appear to work"? Isn't, in 13, the only
consequence of vac_strategy not being "propagated" that we'll not use a
strategy in parallel workers? Presumably that was hard to notice
because most people don't run manual VACUUM with cost limits turned
on. And autovacuum doesn't use parallelism.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-04-06 00:09:02 | Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-04-05 23:53:58 | Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies |