| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: Confine vacuum skip logic to lazy_scan_skip |
| Date: | 2024-07-07 14:49:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20240707144944.58.nmisch@google.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 05:36:25PM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> I've attached a WIP v11 streaming vacuum patch set here that is
> rebased over master (by Thomas), so that I could add a CF entry for
> it. It still has the problem with the extra WAL write and fsync calls
> investigated by Thomas above. Thomas has some work in progress doing
> streaming write-behind to alleviate the issues with the buffer access
> strategy and streaming reads. When he gets a version of that ready to
> share, he will start a new "Streaming Vacuum" thread.
To avoid reviewing the wrong patch, I'm writing to verify the status here.
This is Needs Review in the commitfest. I think one of these two holds:
1. Needs Review is valid.
2. It's actually Waiting on Author. You're commissioning a review of the
future-thread patch, not this one.
If it's (1), given the WIP marking, what is the scope of the review you seek?
I'm guessing performance is out of scope; what else is in or out of scope?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2024-07-07 16:03:42 | pg_maintain and USAGE privilege on schema |
| Previous Message | Joel Jacobson | 2024-07-07 14:22:48 | Re: Incorrect results from numeric round() and trunc() |