| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Summary of plans to avoid the annoyance of Freezing |
| Date: | 2015-08-10 18:21:26 |
| Message-ID: | 55C8EBA6.90908@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/10/2015 10:31 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Freezing is not a necessary pre-condition for either of those things, I
> am happy to say. There is confusion here because for ( 1 ) the shrink
> was performed after freezing, but when you have access to the epoch
> there is no need for exhaustive freezing - only in special cases, as
> noted. If we are lucky those special cases will mean a massive reduction
> in I/O. For ( 2 ) a normal VACUUM is sufficient and as Robert observes,
> maybe just HOT is enough.
Yeah, saw your explanation on this on the other thread. Good point.
Question: does regular vacuum update the visibility map in the same way
vacuum freeze does?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2015-08-10 18:24:21 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2015-08-10 17:58:33 | Re: PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE - maximum size of GIN pending list Re: HEAD seems to generate larger WAL regarding GIN index |