Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum

From: John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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: 2022-11-25 09:47:20
Message-ID: CAFBsxsFpwDRNJxS2a5ha8z+r3rz-FZhjbnkQ2Ch80DEDxgjKuw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 9:54 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> [v11]

There is one more thing that just now occurred to me: In expanding the use
of size classes, that makes rebasing and reworking the shared memory piece
more work than it should be. That's important because there are still some
open questions about the design around shared memory. To keep unnecessary
churn to a minimum, perhaps we should limit size class expansion to just
one (or 5 total size classes) for the near future?

--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2022-11-25 10:20:22 Re: Logical Replication Custom Column Expression
Previous Message li jie 2022-11-25 09:06:44 Re: Support logical replication of DDLs