| From: | Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | MUHAMMAD ASIF <anaeem(dot)it(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: vacuumlo issue |
| Date: | 2012-03-20 15:24:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAK3UJRH7Z+WV64RAuKxqP3iqusQ7W=41nLmF_fz-V1T=7jBvLw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I'm not entirely convinced that that was a good idea. However, so far
> as vacuumlo is concerned, the only reason this is a problem is that
> vacuumlo goes out of its way to do all the large-object deletions in a
> single transaction. What's the point of that? It'd be useful to batch
> them, probably, rather than commit each deletion individually. But the
> objects being deleted are by assumption unreferenced, so I see no
> correctness argument why they should need to go away all at once.
I think you are asking for this option:
-l LIMIT stop after removing LIMIT large objects
which was added in b69f2e36402aaa.
Josh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2012-03-20 15:24:51 | Re: Memory usage during sorting |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-03-20 15:21:36 | Re: Regarding column reordering project for GSoc 2012 |