Re: VACUUM (DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING on)

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 11:47, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 10:15, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 01:40, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 8:02 PM Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 17:59, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:54 PM Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > > > Patches attached.
> > > > > > 1. vacuum_anti_wraparound.v2.patch
> > > > > > 2. vacuumdb_anti_wrap.v1.patch - depends upon (1)
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't like the use of ANTI_WRAPAROUND as a name for this new option.
> > > > > Wouldn't it make more sense to call it AGGRESSIVE? Or maybe something
> > > > > else, but I dislike anti-wraparound.
> > > >
> > > > -1 for using the term AGGRESSIVE, which seems likely to offend people.
> > > > I'm sure a more descriptive term exists.
> > >
> > > Since we use the term aggressive scan in the docs, I personally don't
> > > feel unnatural about that. But since this option also disables index
> > > cleanup when not enabled explicitly, I’m concerned a bit if user might
> > > get confused. I came up with some names like FEEZE_FAST and
> > > FREEZE_MINIMAL but I'm not sure these are better.
> >
> > FREEZE_FAST seems good.
> >
> > > BTW if this option also disables index cleanup for faster freezing,
> > > why don't we disable heap truncation as well?
> >
> > Good idea
>
> Patch attached, using the name "FAST_FREEZE" instead.

And the additional patch also.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/