|From:||Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>|
|Cc:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Anastasia Lubennikova <lubennikovaav(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>> On 18 Aug 2017, at 13:39, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Indeed they do, and that's what motivated this patch. But I'd need
>>> TB-sized tables to set up something like that. I don't have the
>>> hardware or time available to do that (vacuum on bloated TB-sized
>>> tables can take days in my experience). Scale 4000 is as big as I can
>>> get without running out of space for the tests in my test hardware.
>>> If anybody else has the ability, I'd be thankful if they did test it
>>> under those conditions, but I cannot. I think Anastasia's test is
>>> closer to such a test, that's probably why it shows a bigger
>>> improvement in total elapsed time.
>>> Our production database could possibly be used, but it can take about
>>> a week to clone it, upgrade it (it's 9.5 currently), and run the
>>> relevant vacuum.
>> It looks like I won't be able to do that test with a production
>> snapshot anytime soon.
>> Getting approval for the budget required to do that looks like it's
>> going to take far longer than I thought.
>> Regardless of that, I think the patch can move forward. I'm still
>> planning to do the test at some point, but this patch shouldn't block
>> on it.
> This patch has been marked Ready for committer after review, but wasn’t
> committed in the current commitfest so it will be moved to the next. Since it
> no longer applies cleanly, it’s being reset to Waiting for author though.
> cheers ./daniel
Rebased version of the patches attached
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2017-10-02 14:19:54||Re: [PATCH] Assert that the correct locks are held when calling PageGetLSN()|
|Previous Message||David E. Wheeler||2017-10-02 14:01:43||Re: Fwd: Have a problem with citext|