| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Extent Locks |
| Date: | 2013-05-28 15:49:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0xiUJWwR0vWrHWRE+B5y8-EV_zp948T1kvPePuhiAj_sw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Jaime Casanova (jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
>> btw, we can also use a next_extend_blocks GUC/reloption as a limit for
>> autovacuum so it will allow that empty pages at the end of the table
>
> I'm really not, at all, excited about adding in GUCs for this. We just
> need to realize when the only available space in the relation is at the
> end and people are writing to it and avoid truncating pages off the end-
> if we don't already have locks that prevent vacuum from doing this
> already. I'd want to see where it's actually happening before stressing
> over it terribly much.
+1 autovacuum configuration is already much too complex as it
is...we should be removing/consolidating options, not adding them.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-05-28 15:51:53 | Re: potential bug in JSON |
| Previous Message | Szymon Guz | 2013-05-28 15:38:57 | potential bug in JSON |