| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Anastasia Lubennikova <lubennikovaav(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem |
| Date: | 2018-02-07 22:57:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20180207225730.75ihvaghfw46vysu@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Claudio Freire wrote:
> - vacuum test on its own parallel group
Hmm, this solution is not very friendly to the goal of reducing test
runtime, particularly since the new test creates a nontrivial-sized
table. Maybe we can find a better alternative. Can we use some wait
logic instead? Maybe something like grab a snapshot of running VXIDs
and loop waiting until they're all gone before doing the vacuum?
Also, I don't understand why pg_relation_size() is not a better solution
to determining the table size compared to explain.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-02-07 23:01:53 | Re: postgres_fdw: perform UPDATE/DELETE .. RETURNING on a join directly |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-02-07 22:52:09 | Re: PDF Builds on borka (Debian/stretch) broken - 9.6 |