| From: | Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski <me(at)komzpa(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Ideriha, Takeshi" <ideriha(dot)takeshi(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] GUC for cleanup indexes threshold. |
| Date: | 2018-06-26 13:10:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAC8Q8tLYFOpKNaPS_E7V8KtPdE=_TnAn16t=A3LuL=XjfOO-BQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
вт, 26 июн. 2018 г. в 15:42, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:46 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 6:55 PM, Alexander Korotkov
> > <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> > > So, I propose to just
> > > increase maximum value for both GUC and reloption. See the attached
> > > patch. It also changes calculations _bt_vacuum_needs_cleanup() for
> > > better handling of large values (just some kind of overflow paranoia).
> >
> > The patch looks good to me.
>
> Pushed, thanks!
>
Thank you for the enhancement. Now Index Only Scans over Append-Only tables
in Postgres can be implemented, even if it requires manual kicking of
VACUUM over large table, and that's a great enhancement for moving object
databases. :)
My eye catches another thing, the error message in tests is:
DETAIL: Valid values are between "0.000000" and
"179769313486231570814527423731704356798070567525844996598917476803157260780028538760589558632766878171540458953514382464234321326889464182768467546703537516986049910576551282076245490090389328944075868508455133942304583236903222948165808559332123348274797826204144723168738177180919299881250404026184124858368.000000".
a) do we really need to print digits of dblmax? "Valid values are double
precision, non-negative"?
b) double precision binary-to-decimal noise starts at 16th digit. Why does
it stop at the point, and we have precise ".000000"? Does it bite the
conversion somewhere else too?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2018-06-26 13:16:16 | Re: [HACKERS] GUC for cleanup indexes threshold. |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2018-06-26 13:10:38 | Re: unexpected relkind: 73 ERROR with partition table index |