From: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Darafei Praliaskouski <me(at)komzpa(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Ideriha, Takeshi" <ideriha(dot)takeshi(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] GUC for cleanup indexes threshold. |
Date: | 2018-06-20 09:00:31 |
Message-ID: | CAPpHfdvGxD5pAK9LiHC7E9J_aH6E_bbxPL=9CyVbkKu+BY8Q6A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 8:32 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:00 AM, Alexander Korotkov
> > Ok. I've rephrased comment a bit. Also, you created "index vacuum"
> > subsection in the "resource usage" section. I think it's not
> > appropriate for this option to be in "resource usage". Ideally it
> > should be grouped with other vacuum options, but we don't have single
> > section for that. "Autovacuum" section is also not appropriate,
> > because this guc works not only for autovacuum. So, most semantically
> > close options, which affects vacuum in general, are
> > vacuum_freeze_min_age, vacuum_freeze_table_age,
> > vacuum_multixact_freeze_min_age and vacuum_multixact_freeze_table_age,
> > which are located in "client connection defaults" section. So, I
> > decided to move this GUC into this section. I also change the section
> > in GUC definition (guc.c) from AUTOVACUUM to CLIENT_CONN_STATEMENT.
>
> Agreed. So should we move it to 19.11 Client Connection Defaults in
> doc as well? And I think it's better if this option places next to
> other vacuum options for finding easier. Attached patch changes them
> so. Please review it.
Right, thank you. Looks good for me.
I'm going to commit this if no objections.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-06-20 10:54:27 | Re: Excessive CPU usage in StandbyReleaseLocks() |
Previous Message | Amit Khandekar | 2018-06-20 08:58:56 | Re: server crashed with TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(!parallel_aware || pathnode->path.parallel_safe)" |