| From: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |
| Date: | 2023-01-26 07:08:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAFBsxsFTDCD0Mqs2QtLq2w4x3bxkTy-TpmK32V7nA8HDKW+v4g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 1:17 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 6:00 PM John Naylor
> <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Attached is a rebase to fix conflicts from recent commits.
>
> I have reviewed v22-0022* patch and I have some comments.
>
> 1.
> >It also changes to the column names max_dead_tuples and num_dead_tuples
and to
> >show the progress information in bytes.
>
> I think this statement needs to be rephrased.
Could you be more specific?
> 3.
>
> We are changing the min value of 'maintenance_work_mem' to 2MB. Should
> we do the same for the 'autovacuum_work_mem'?
Yes, we should change that, too. We've discussed previously that
autovacuum_work_mem is possibly rendered unnecessary by this work, but we
agreed that that should be a separate thread. And needs additional testing
to verify.
I agree with your other comments.
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2023-01-26 08:03:27 | Re: Syncrep and improving latency due to WAL throttling |
| Previous Message | John Naylor | 2023-01-26 06:54:43 | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |