| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |
| Date: | 2013-01-25 18:01:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20130125180116.GC14926@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-01-25 12:52:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > I think if we backpatch this we should only prefer wraparound tables and
> > leave the rest unchanged.
>
> That's not a realistic option, at least not with anything that uses this
> approach to sorting the tables. You'd have to assume that qsort() is
> stable which it probably isn't.
Well, comparing them equally will result in an about as arbitrary order
as right now, so I don't really see a problem with that. I am fine with
sorting them truly randomly as well (by assining a temporary value when
putting it into the list so the comparison is repeatable and conforms to
the triangle inequality etc).
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-01-25 18:02:19 | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |
| Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2013-01-25 17:56:46 | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |