| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |
| Date: | 2026-05-28 03:34:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LFqdh4=b4t3OTpmCMs211-9dJEG8JdcV1ikN94LBum9w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 5:31 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 1:08 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > 0001 remains unchanged.
> >
>
> Few minor comments:
> =================
Commit message says: "This change does not advance catalog_xmin.
REPACK already holds a snapshot that prevents catalog dead tuple
removal, so catalog_xmin handling can be addressed independently.".
Isn't it equally important to advance this, otherwise, for long
running REPACKs dead tuples will be accumulated needlessly? If so, do
we have any ideas to avoid this?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zizhuan Liu | 2026-05-28 04:31:34 | Re: Avoid calling SetMatViewPopulatedState if possible |
| Previous Message | jian he | 2026-05-28 03:23:45 | Re: FOR PORTION OF does not recompute GENERATED STORED columns that depend on the range column |