Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Galy Lee <lee(dot)galy(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview
Date: 2007-02-28 05:10:57
Message-ID: 21490.1172639457@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Galy Lee <lee(dot)galy(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> If we can stop at any point, we can make maintenance memory large
> sufficient to contain all of the dead tuples, then we only need to
> clean index for once. No matter how many times vacuum stops,
> indexes are cleaned for once.

I beg your pardon? You're the one who's been harping on the
table-so-large-it-takes-days-to-vacuum scenario. How you figure that
you can store all the dead TIDs in working memory?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Henry B. Hotz 2007-02-28 05:23:09 Re: [HACKERS] 5 Weeks till feature freeze or (do you know where your patch is?)
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-02-28 05:08:58 Re: Proposal for Implenting read-only queries during wal replay (SoC 2007)