| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "Jamison, Kirk" <k(dot)jamison(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: reloption to prevent VACUUM from truncating empty pages at the end of relation |
| Date: | 2019-02-22 09:24:32 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_bb23Y0hZyJUuH9vvZmr4JZ=dbY3jyLCT==a3orcCRX9Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 3:39 AM Tsunakawa, Takayuki
<tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> No, changing the parameter acquires ShareUpdaeExclusive lock. I just imitated the description for n_distinct in the same comment block. The meaning is that the setting cannot be changed during VACUUM, so in-flight VACUUM is not affected.
Ah I see, thanks! I find this a little bit confusing but if that's
already documented like this for other parameters then I guess that's
ok.
One last thing, I think we should at least add one regression test for
this setting. The one you provided previously seems perfectly suited.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matsumura, Ryo | 2019-02-22 09:59:26 | RE: SQL statement PREPARE does not work in ECPG |
| Previous Message | Antonin Houska | 2019-02-22 09:14:33 | Re: Unnecessary checks for new rows by some RI trigger functions? |