| From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Golub <pavel(at)gf(dot)microolap(dot)com>, Darafei Praliaskouski <me(at)komzpa(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GUC for cleanup indexes threshold. |
| Date: | 2017-10-16 09:32:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAD21AoDyfxSYBOtLmqAAVpQ7_r7hxPJ8uhhAHQ3weV-ATZYrbw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:14 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Pavel Golub <pavel(at)microolap(dot)com> wrote:
>> DP> The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer
>>
>> Seems like, we may also going to hit it and it would be cool this
>> vacuum issue solved for next PG version.
>
> Exactly which patch on this thread is someone proposing for commit?
>
I guess that is the patch I proposed. However I think that there still
is room for discussion because the patch cannot skip to cleanup vacuum
when aggressive vacuum, which is one of the situation that I really
wanted to skip.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-10-16 09:44:05 | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-10-16 09:06:01 | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |