| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Option to not use ringbuffer in VACUUM, using it in failsafe mode |
| Date: | 2023-04-06 01:14:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvo57+sYWx+nwM3DXM2m0S8f1XDruTURSWjdwOSRKu6s9Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 at 12:42, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Attached is a v12 of the whole vacuum_buffer_usage_limit patch set which
> includes a commit to fix the bug in master and a commit to move relevant
> code from vacuum() up into ExecVacuum().
I'm still playing catch up to the moving of the pre-checks from
vacuum() to ExecVacuum(). I'm now wondering...
Is it intended that VACUUM t1,t2; now share the same strategy?
Currently, in master, we'll allocate a new strategy for t2 after
vacuuming t1. Does this not mean we'll now leave fewer t1 pages in
shared_buffers because the reuse of the strategy will force them out
with t2 pages? I understand there's nothing particularly invalid
about that, but it is a change in behaviour that the patch seems to be
making with very little consideration as to if it's better or worse.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2023-04-06 01:24:59 | Re: Option to not use ringbuffer in VACUUM, using it in failsafe mode |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-04-06 00:53:50 | Re: [BUG] pg_stat_statements and extended query protocol |