From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> |
Cc: | Shinya Kato <shinya11(dot)kato(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Add mode column to pg_stat_progress_vacuum |
Date: | 2025-10-07 16:26:03 |
Message-ID: | aOU_G4qdOv_gG7DI@nathan |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 11:50:46AM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 11:04 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I wonder if we should also add "aggressive".
>
> I don't think so. I feel like the point of the mode is to answer "why
> is this vacuum running" not "how is it operating under the hood".
To some extent, those are tied together. For example, a failsafe vacuum is
an anti-wraparound vacuum that skips index vacuuming, etc. And an
anti-wraparound vacuum implies an aggressive scan, but not vice versa.
There's also a separate parameter (vacuum_freeze_table_age) that controls
when vacuum decides to perform an aggressive scan, just like there exists a
parameter for anti-wraparound vacuums (autovacuum_freeze_max_age) and
failsafe vacuums (vacuum_failsafe_age).
--
nathan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2025-10-07 16:40:48 | Re: Buffer locking is special (hints, checksums, AIO writes) |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2025-10-07 16:25:45 | comment for TwoPhaseGetOldestXidInCommit |