Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing
Date: 2018-11-08 17:56:00
Message-ID: CA+TgmobZ68Oaf2V7NxFDx8eiPHSW-U_b=zyOQ+kcCs6k91B-qQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 4:36 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> We already have disable_page_skipping option, not (page_skipping
> false). So ISMT disable_index_cleanup would be more natural.

Sure.

> Also,
> since what to do with this option is not only skipping vacuum indexes
> but also skipping removeing dead tuples on heap, I think that the
> option should have a more understandable name for users indicating
> that both it removes dead tuples less than the normal vacuum and it's
> aimed to freeze tuple more faster. Of course we document them, though.

Well, I actually don't think that you should control two behaviors
with the same option. If you want to vacuum and skip index cleanup,
you should say VACUUM (disable_index_cleanup). If you want to vacuum,
disable index cleanup, and skip aggressively, you should say VACUUM
(freeze, disable_index_cleanup). Both behaviors seem useful.

--
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 Robert Haas 2018-11-08 17:57:55 Re: Should new partitions inherit their tablespace from their parent?
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2018-11-08 17:54:18 Re: security release