| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, postgresql(at)taljaren(dot)se, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17717: Regression in vacuumdb (15 is slower than 10/11 and possible memory issue) |
| Date: | 2022-12-29 02:17:54 |
| Message-ID: | 451605.1672280274@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 03:13:23PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm forced to the conclusion that we have to expose some VACUUM
>> options if we want this to work well. Attached is a draft patch
>> that invents SKIP_DATABASE_STATS and ONLY_DATABASE_STATS options
>> (name bikeshedding welcome) and teaches vacuumdb to use them.
> I assumed it would look like:
> VACUUM (UPDATE_DATABASE_STATS {yes,no,only})
Meh. We could do it like that, but I think options that look like
booleans but aren't are messy.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-12-29 03:03:29 | Re: BUG #17717: Regression in vacuumdb (15 is slower than 10/11 and possible memory issue) |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-12-29 01:29:10 | Re: BUG #17717: Regression in vacuumdb (15 is slower than 10/11 and possible memory issue) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-12-29 03:03:29 | Re: BUG #17717: Regression in vacuumdb (15 is slower than 10/11 and possible memory issue) |
| Previous Message | diaa | 2022-12-29 02:10:38 | GSOC2023 |