Re: VACUUM (DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING on)

From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: VACUUM (DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING on)
Date: 2020-11-20 01:39:51
Message-ID: CAD21AoDS-Jm4DZwuZE3eUKUwd+9n92iAWae4Ntsynh4i4+YLtw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 8:02 PM Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 17:59, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:54 PM Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Patches attached.
> > > 1. vacuum_anti_wraparound.v2.patch
> > > 2. vacuumdb_anti_wrap.v1.patch - depends upon (1)
> >
> > I don't like the use of ANTI_WRAPAROUND as a name for this new option.
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to call it AGGRESSIVE? Or maybe something
> > else, but I dislike anti-wraparound.
>
> -1 for using the term AGGRESSIVE, which seems likely to offend people.
> I'm sure a more descriptive term exists.

Since we use the term aggressive scan in the docs, I personally don't
feel unnatural about that. But since this option also disables index
cleanup when not enabled explicitly, I’m concerned a bit if user might
get confused. I came up with some names like FEEZE_FAST and
FREEZE_MINIMAL but I'm not sure these are better.

BTW if this option also disables index cleanup for faster freezing,
why don't we disable heap truncation as well?

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
EnterpriseDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nail Carpenter 2020-11-20 01:50:46 Re: BUG #16663: DROP INDEX did not free up disk space: idle connection hold file marked as deleted
Previous Message osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com 2020-11-20 01:19:05 RE: Disable WAL logging to speed up data loading