| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin |
| Date: | 2024-07-22 18:13:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20240722181332.ohjbcaui3o5loo2b@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024-07-22 12:00:51 -0400, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:49 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > >> Andres has suggested in the past that we allow maintenance_work_mem be
> > >> set to a lower value or introduce some kind of development GUC so that
> > >> we can more easily test multiple pass index vacuuming. Do you think
> > >> this would be worth it?
> >
> > > No, I don't.
> >
> > I don't see why that's not a good idea.
>
> I don't think that it's worth going to that trouble. Testing multiple
> passes isn't hard -- not in any real practical sense.
It's hard by now (i.e. 17+) because you need substantial amounts of rows to be
able to trigger it which makes it a hard fight to introduce. And the cost of
setting the GUC limit lower is essentially zero.
What's the point of having such a high lower limit?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2024-07-22 18:17:46 | Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-07-22 17:55:47 | Re: [18] Policy on IMMUTABLE functions and Unicode updates |