Re: eliminate xl_heap_visible to reduce WAL (and eventually set VM on-access)

From: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: eliminate xl_heap_visible to reduce WAL (and eventually set VM on-access)
Date: 2026-04-21 21:37:13
Message-ID: CAAKRu_aS3e7-Q+9mO5M5W8_pw-rcAgDHuNzykUSrcHw2JTh74g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 12:18 PM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, I think changing it to a temp table is the easiest fix. We could
> also do autovacuum_enabled=false, I think, but making it a temp table
> seems cleanest.
>
> I wonder if we should move the EXPLAIN test above the results queries,
> then throw in a vacuum in between some of them so we exercise btree
> gist as a bitmap heap scan and as an index only scan. It could provide
> a little bit more coverage? Or maybe that isn't actually extra
> coverage. I'm not sure.

I kept it simple and just committed making it a temp table in 62407d26b7c

- Melanie

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2026-04-21 21:17:13 Re: First draft of PG 19 release notes