| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: (auto)vacuum truncate exclusive lock |
| Date: | 2013-04-12 18:08:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20130412180826.GI30671@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane escribió:
> Are you saying you intend to revert that whole concept? That'd be
> okay with me, I think. Otherwise we need some thought about how to
> inform the stats collector what's really happening.
Maybe what we need is to consider table truncation as a separate
activity from vacuuming. Then autovacuum could invoke it without having
to do a full-blown vacuum. For this to work, I guess we would like to
separately store the status of the back-scan in pgstat somehow (I think
a boolean flag suffices: "were we able to truncate all pages that
appeared to be empty?")
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-04-12 18:15:11 | Re: Detach/attach table and index data files from one cluster to another |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-04-12 17:57:09 | Re: (auto)vacuum truncate exclusive lock |