From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem |
Date: | 2018-04-06 20:33:14 |
Message-ID: | 20180406203314.4qn2hog2fc6exxod@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> > FWIW I liked the idea of having this abstraction possibly do other
> > things -- for instance to vacuum brin indexes you'd like to mark index
> > tuples as "containing tuples that were removed" and eventually
> > re-summarize the range. With the current interface we cannot do that,
> > because vacuum expects brin vacuuming to ask for each heap tuple "is
> > this tid dead?" and of course we don't have a list of tids to ask for.
> > So if we can ask instead "how many dead tuples does this block contain?"
> > brin vacuuming will be much happier.
>
> I don't think either patch gives you that.
>
> The bulkdelete interface is part of the indexam and unlikely to change
> in this patch.
I'm sure you're correct. I was just saying that with the abstract
interface it is easier to implement what I suggest as a follow-on patch.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Kuzmenkov | 2018-04-06 20:40:59 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-06 20:29:58 | Re: Documentation for bootstrap data conversion |