From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Option to not use ringbuffer in VACUUM, using it in failsafe mode |
Date: | 2023-01-11 19:18:42 |
Message-ID: | 20230111191842.5ywh7twkis42kxad@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-01-11 11:06:26 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:58 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > Any idea about the name? The obvious thing is to reference ring buffers in the
> > option name, but that's more of an implementation detail...
>
> What are the chances that anybody using this feature via a manual
> VACUUM command will also use INDEX_CLEANUP off? It's not really
> supposed to be used routinely, at all. Right? It's just for
> emergencies.
I think it's also quite useful for e.g. vacuuming after initial data loads or
if you need to do a first vacuum after a lot of bloat accumulated due to a
stuck transaction.
> Perhaps it can be tied to INDEX_CLEANUP=off? That makes it hard to get
> just the behavior you want when testing VACUUM, but maybe that doesn't
> matter.
I don't like that - it's also quite useful to disable use of ringbuffers when
you actually need to clean up indexes. Especially when we have a lot of dead
tuples we'll rescan indexes over and over...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-01-11 19:20:51 | Re: Option to not use ringbuffer in VACUUM, using it in failsafe mode |
Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2023-01-11 19:06:45 | Re: [PATCH] Add `verify-system` sslmode to use system CA pool for server cert |