| From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <nasbyj(at)amazon(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often |
| Date: | 2023-03-09 13:19:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAD21AoCqggJsNeWsFbgZjH9coQdMZBE3opZ4JMzuO8cdNTcFFA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 4:47 PM John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 12:42 AM Jim Nasby <nasbyj(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Doesn't the dead tuple space grow as needed? Last I looked we don't allocate up to 1GB right off the bat.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> > Of course, if the patch that eliminates the 1GB vacuum limit gets committed the situation will be even worse.
>
> If you're referring to the proposed tid store, I'd be interested in seeing a reproducible test case with a m_w_m over 1GB where it makes things worse than the current state of affairs.
And I think that the tidstore makes it easy to react to
maintenance_work_mem changes. We don't need to enlarge it and just
update its memory limit at an appropriate time.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2023-03-09 13:23:46 | Re: Add shared buffer hits to pg_stat_io |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-03-09 13:08:27 | Re: SQL/JSON revisited |