| From: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Robert Haas' <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2019-02-28 01:05:07 |
| Message-ID: | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1FBBA486@G01JPEXMBYT05 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com]
> I don't think that a VACUUM option would be out of place, but a GUC
> sounds like an attractive nuisance to me. It will encourage people to
> just flip it blindly instead of considering the particular cases where
> they need that behavior, and I think chances are good that most people
> who do that will end up being sad.
Ouch, I sent my previous mail before reading this. I can understand it may be cumbersome to identify and specify each table, so I tend to agree the parameter in postgresql, which is USERSET to allow ALTER DATABASE/USER SET to tune specific databases and applications. But should the vacuuming of system catalogs also follow this setting?
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-02-28 01:45:49 | Re: pg_partition_tree crashes for a non-defined relation |
| Previous Message | Marc Dean | 2019-02-28 01:01:16 | Re: BUG #15293: Stored Procedure Triggered by Logical Replication is Unable to use Notification Events |