| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, postgresql(at)taljaren(dot)se, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17717: Regression in vacuumdb (15 is slower than 10/11 and possible memory issue) |
| Date: | 2022-12-28 21:23:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20221228212321.GB4009813@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 04:20:19PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I think the main difference between your patch and mine is that I've
>> exposed vac_update_datfrozenxid() via a function instead of a VACUUM
>> option. IMHO that feels a little more natural, but I can't say I feel too
>> strongly about it.
>
> I thought about that but it seems fairly unsafe, because that means
> that vac_update_datfrozenxid is executing inside a user-controlled
> transaction. I don't think it will hurt us if the user does a
> ROLLBACK afterward --- but if he sits on the open transaction,
> that would be bad, if only because we're still holding the
> LockDatabaseFrozenIds lock which will block other VACUUMs.
> There might be more hazards besides that; certainly no one has ever
> tried to run vac_update_datfrozenxid that way before.
That's a good point.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-12-28 22:05:39 | Re: BUG #17717: Regression in vacuumdb (15 is slower than 10/11 and possible memory issue) |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-12-28 21:21:50 | Re: BUG #17717: Regression in vacuumdb (15 is slower than 10/11 and possible memory issue) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-12-28 21:26:12 | Re: add \dpS to psql |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-12-28 21:21:50 | Re: BUG #17717: Regression in vacuumdb (15 is slower than 10/11 and possible memory issue) |