Re: add PROCESS_MAIN to VACUUM

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: add PROCESS_MAIN to VACUUM
Date: 2023-03-01 18:09:53
Message-ID: 20230301180953.b64tekcnh43xtzqn@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2023-Mar-01, Michael Paquier wrote:

> +-- PROCESS_MAIN option
> +VACUUM (PROCESS_MAIN FALSE) vactst;
> +VACUUM (PROCESS_MAIN FALSE, PROCESS_TOAST FALSE) vactst;
> +VACUUM (PROCESS_MAIN FALSE, FULL) vactst;
>
> Thinking a bit here. This set of tests does not make sure that the
> main relation and/or the toast relation have been actually processed.
> pg_stat_user_tables does not track what's happening on the toast
> relations. So... What about adding some tests in 100_vacuumdb.pl
> that rely on vacuumdb --verbose and check the logs produced? We
> should make sure that the toast or the main relation are processed,
> by tracking, for example, logs like vacuuming "schema.table". When
> FULL is involved, we may want to track the changes on relfilenodes
> depending on what's wanted.

Maybe instead of reading the log, read values from pg_stat_all_tables.

--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Uno puede defenderse de los ataques; contra los elogios se esta indefenso"

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2023-03-01 18:13:55 Re: Non-superuser subscription owners
Previous Message Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais 2023-03-01 18:09:44 Re: Memory leak from ExecutorState context?