| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Ideriha, Takeshi" <ideriha(dot)takeshi(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: GUC for cleanup indexes threshold. |
| Date: | 2017-02-24 03:19:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JQzRai_nnus9GKYye1tLHe5B_redjKcMGr-=i52ueLvQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I understand that there could be some delay in reclaiming dead pages
>> but do you think it is such a big deal that we completely scan the
>> index for such cases or even try to change the metapage format?
>
> IIUC, I think that we need to have the number of half-dead pages in meta page.
>
Don't you think we need to consider backward compatibility if we want
to do that?
> Isn't it a problem that the freespace map of btree index is not
> vacuumed if all vacuums skip the second pass?
>
AFAIU, you want to skip only when there is no dead tuple removal, if
so what is the need to update freespace map of btree index?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-02-24 03:45:14 | Re: A typo in mcxt.c |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-02-24 03:12:57 | Re: Automatic cleanup of oldest WAL segments with pg_receivexlog |