| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing |
| Date: | 2019-04-17 17:46:17 |
| Message-ID: | 15041.1555523177@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 5:00 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I'm thinking that we really need to upgrade vacuum's reporting totals
>>> so that it accounts in some more-honest way for pre-existing dead
>>> line pointers. The patch as it stands has made the reporting even more
>>> confusing, rather than less so.
> Or, how about reporting the vacuumed tuples and line pointers we
> separately? It might be too detailed but since with this patch we
> delete either only tuples or only line pointers, it's more accurate.
Yeah, if we wanted to expose these complications more directly, we
could think about adding or changing the main counters. I was wondering
about whether we should have it report "x bytes and y line pointers
freed", rather than counting tuples per se.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-04-17 19:20:26 | Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-04-17 17:43:25 | Re: jsonpath |