Re: optimizing vacuum truncation scans

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: optimizing vacuum truncation scans
Date: 2015-07-25 08:46:02
Message-ID: CANP8+jK-Q80QaXe7HrJrssb4o7LuMmn0p12rgfDr1MoiGUN=QA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 22 July 2015 at 14:59, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Urgh. So if we do this, that forever precludes having HOT pruning set
> the all-visible bit.

What is the reason why we don't do that already? Surely its a one liner?

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2015-07-25 09:27:52 Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2015-07-25 08:39:04 Re: Proposal for CSN based snapshots