From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Compute XID horizon for page level index vacuum on primary. |
Date: | 2019-05-01 16:50:16 |
Message-ID: | 25965.1556729416@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 12:15 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> My current inclination is to not do anything for v12. Robert, do you
>> disagree?
> Not strongly enough to argue about it very hard. The current behavior
> is a little weird, but it's a long way from being the weirdest thing
> we ship, and it appears that we have no tangible evidence that it
> causes a problem in practice.
I think there's nothing that fails to suck about a hardwired "+ 10".
We should either remove that and use effective_io_concurrency as-is,
or decide that it's worth having a separate GUC for bulk operations.
At this stage of the cycle I'd incline to the former, but if somebody
is excited enough to prepare a patch for a new GUC, I wouldn't push
back on that solution.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-05-01 17:10:40 | Re: pgsql: Compute XID horizon for page level index vacuum on primary. |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-05-01 16:34:04 | Re: pgsql: Compute XID horizon for page level index vacuum on primary. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-01 16:59:10 | Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6 |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-05-01 16:46:20 | Re: walsender vs. XLogBackgroundFlush during shutdown |