Re: GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(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: 2017-02-25 03:38:10
Message-ID: CAA4eK1LgV7GHcByxLj9hdyWW1tQ5LZ+ssZVCmtQ_ktQOKV9Rfw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 3:40 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think this thread is pretty short on evidence that would let us make
>> a smart decision about what to do here. I see three possibilities.
>> The first is that this patch is a good idea whether we do something
>> about the issue of half-dead pages or not. The second is that this
>> patch is a good idea if we do something about the issue of half-dead
>> pages but a bad idea if we don't. The third is that this patch is a
>> bad idea whether or not we do anything about the issue of half-dead
>> pages.
>

+1. I think we can track the stats from
IndexBulkDeleteResult->pages_free to see the impact of the patch.

> Half-dead pages are not really relevant to this discussion, AFAICT. I
> think that both you and Simon mean "recyclable" pages.
>

Yes, I think so and I think that is just confusion about terminology.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kohei KaiGai 2017-02-25 04:30:32 Re: ParallelFinish-hook of FDW/CSP (Re: Steps inside ExecEndGather)
Previous Message Amin Fallahi 2017-02-25 01:07:11 Oblivious nested loop join algorithm