| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Visibility map thoughts |
| Date: | 2007-11-06 13:24:59 |
| Message-ID: | 47306B2B.2050806@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 11/6/07, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> (Gosh, we really need a name for the sort of vacuum. I was about to say
>> "we'd still need regular regular VACUUMs" :-))
>
> As the new VACUUM variant will be somewhat unsafe, it should
> not replace "regular" VACUUM but get separate name.
What do you mean by unsafe? It is supposed to reclaim all dead tuples a
normal vacuum would, except for HOT updated tuples that can be pruned
without scanning indexes. It doesn't advance the relfrozenxid or update
stats, though.
> VACUUM FAST maybe? Informally "fastvacuum". Something with
> "lazy" or "partial" would also be possibility.
We already call the regular vacuum "lazy" in the source code, as opposed
to VACUUM FULL. Partial is also bit misleading; while it doesn't scan
the whole table, it should find all dead tuples.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-11-06 13:29:03 | Re: Visibility map thoughts |
| Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2007-11-06 13:22:09 | Fix pg_dump dependency on postgres.h |