From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Idea for getting rid of VACUUM FREEZE on cold pages |
Date: | 2010-06-02 17:51:21 |
Message-ID: | 1275500917-sup-2984@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Russell Smith's message of mié jun 02 06:38:35 -0400 2010:
> Don't you not get a positive enough effect by adjusting the table's
> autovacuum_min_freeze_age and autovacuum_max_freeze_age. If you set
> those numbers small, it appears to me that you would get very quickly to
> a state where the vacuum would example only the most recent part of the
> table rather than the whole thing.
The problem is that vacuum doesn't know that a certain part of the table
is already frozen. It needs to scan it completely anyways. If we had a
"frozen" map, we could mark pages that are completely frozen and thus do
not need any vacuuming; but we don't (I don't recall the reasons for
this. Maybe it's just that no one has gotten around to it, or maybe
there's something else).
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-06-02 18:03:50 | Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-02 17:45:56 | Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay |