Re: VACUUM (DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING on)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: VACUUM (DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING on)
Date: 2020-11-18 17:59:01
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoa2x0xQZNQQZ2yG=n63yuA7L5MHA8tuh8ymvf5bcVujTg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:54 PM Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Patches attached.
> 1. vacuum_anti_wraparound.v2.patch
> 2. vacuumdb_anti_wrap.v1.patch - depends upon (1)

I don't like the use of ANTI_WRAPAROUND as a name for this new option.
Wouldn't it make more sense to call it AGGRESSIVE? Or maybe something
else, but I dislike anti-wraparound. It's neither the most aggressive
thing we can do to prevent wraparound (that's FREEZE), nor is it the
case that vacuums without this option (or indeed any options) can't
help prevent wraparound, because the aggressive strategy may be
chosen anyway.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2020-11-18 18:01:09 Re: Allow matching whole DN from a client certificate
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2020-11-18 17:58:04 Re: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait