| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Visibility map, partial vacuums |
| Date: | 2008-10-28 18:07:17 |
| Message-ID: | 1225217237.3971.225.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 13:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 14:03 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Lazy VACUUM only needs to visit pages that are '0' in the visibility
> >> map. This allows partial vacuums, where we only need to scan those parts
> >> of the table that need vacuuming, plus all indexes.
>
> > Just realised that this means we still have to visit each block of a
> > btree index with a cleanup lock.
>
> Yes, and your proposal cannot fix that. Read "The Deletion Algorithm"
> in nbtree/README, particularly the second paragraph.
Yes, understood. Please read the algorithm again. It does guarantee that
each block in the index has been checked to see if nobody is pinning it,
it just avoids performing I/O to prove that.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2008-10-28 18:14:13 | Re: Window Functions: v07 APIs and buffering strateties |
| Previous Message | Joshua Drake | 2008-10-28 18:01:04 | Re: PostgreSQL + Replicator developer meeting 10/28 |