| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: PANIC: invalid index offnum: 186 when processing BRIN indexes in VACUUM |
| Date: | 2017-11-03 14:35:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20756.1509719720@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Do we still need the complication in brinsummarize to discriminate
>> against the last partial range? Now that the lock consideration
>> is gone, I think that might be a wart.
> In the case of VACUUM, it's not desirable to create a summarization for
> the last partial range, because if the table is still being filled, that
> would slow down the insertion process.
Hm. Okay, but you should change the comment then, because "we do not want
to spend one RelationGetNumberOfBlocks call" is a pretty weak reason.
Also, I think I would accept that argument for autovacuum, but maybe
not so much for a manual vacuum. Maybe you should drive it off
IsAutovacuumWorker rather than which operation is being done.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2017-11-03 14:37:46 | Re: Small improvement to compactify_tuples |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-11-03 14:23:31 | Re: Re: PANIC: invalid index offnum: 186 when processing BRIN indexes in VACUUM |