From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | More aggressive vacuuming of unlogged relations? |
Date: | 2020-10-27 19:58:40 |
Message-ID: | 20201027195840.mc6acwahji5wcamt@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
The patch in [1] makes the horizon logic in procarray.c aware of temp
tables not needing to care about other session's snapshots (also
discussed in[2]). Extending a7212be8b9e, which did that for VACUUM, but
not HOT pruning etc.
While polishing that patch I was wondering whether there are other
classes of relations that we might want to treat differently. And
there's one more that we don't special case right now: unlogged tables.
As unlogged tables aren't replicated via physical rep, we don't need to
apply vacuum_defer_cleanup_age, hot standby feedback and slot based
horizons.
The obvious question is, is that worth doing? My intuition is that yes,
it probably is: Unlogged tables are often used for hotly updated
transient state, allowing that to be cleaned up more aggressively will
reduce bloat.
Comments?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20201015083735.derdzysdtqdvxshp%40alap3.anarazel.de
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20201014203103.72oke6hqywcyhx7s%40alap3.anarazel.de
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-10-27 20:00:17 | Re: cutting down the TODO list thread |
Previous Message | Anastasia Lubennikova | 2020-10-27 19:56:23 | Re: [patch] Fix checksum verification in base backups for zero page headers |