From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often |
Date: | 2023-02-28 02:16:45 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoCebMU2TjRvoCZe4gH0dGc_3JRTOBstoJF_k4fXOfCUbw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 10:21 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-02-27 23:11:53 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > As far as I know there are not such GUC parameters in the core but
> > there might be in third-party table AM and index AM extensions.
>
> We already reload in a pretty broad range of situations, so I'm not sure
> there's a lot that could be unsafe that isn't already.
>
>
> > Also, I'm concerned that allowing to change any GUC parameters during
> > vacuum/analyze could be a foot-gun in the future. When modifying
> > vacuum/analyze-related codes, we have to consider the case where any GUC
> > parameters could be changed during vacuum/analyze.
>
> What kind of scenario are you thinking of?
For example, I guess we will need to take care of changes of
maintenance_work_mem. Currently we initialize the dead tuple space at
the beginning of lazy vacuum, but perhaps we would need to
enlarge/shrink it based on the new value?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2023-02-28 02:25:48 | Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication |
Previous Message | kuroda.keisuke | 2023-02-28 02:07:52 | Re: pg_rewind: warn when checkpoint hasn't happened after promotion |