| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "Jamison, Kirk" <k(dot)jamison(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: reloption to prevent VACUUM from truncating empty pages at the end of relation |
| Date: | 2019-02-27 15:55:49 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY6-OUH818ZDXicj4SvisQP5UvKK33_E6iUL3dmUjnfAQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 4:25 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> Another thing that seems worth thinking about is a system-level GUC,
> and an option in the VACUUM command to control if truncation should
> happen or not. We have a lot of infrastructure to control such
> options between vacuum and autovacuum, so it could be a waste to not
> consider potential synergies.
I don't think that a VACUUM option would be out of place, but a GUC
sounds like an attractive nuisance to me. It will encourage people to
just flip it blindly instead of considering the particular cases where
they need that behavior, and I think chances are good that most people
who do that will end up being sad.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marius Timmer | 2019-02-27 16:32:00 | Re: [HACKERS] Can ICU be used for a database's default sort order? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-02-27 15:52:32 | Re: Oddity with parallel safety test for scan/join target in grouping_planner |