Re: Option to not use ringbuffer in VACUUM, using it in failsafe mode

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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