From: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Visibility map, partial vacuums |
Date: | 2008-11-25 23:45:36 |
Message-ID: | 294448DB-AD20-4E4B-BDC6-6937D9E01039@decibel.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Nov 23, 2008, at 3:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> So it seems like we do indeed want to rejigger autovac's rules a bit
> to account for the possibility of wanting to apply vacuum to get
> visibility bits set.
That makes the idea of not writing out hint bit updates unless the
page is already dirty a lot easier to swallow, because now we'd have
a mechanism in place to ensure that they were set in a reasonable
timeframe by autovacuum. That actually wouldn't incur much extra
overhead at all, except in the case of a table that's effectively
write-only. Actually, that's not even true; you still have to
eventually freeze a write-mostly table.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-11-26 00:00:45 | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1197) |
Previous Message | Decibel! | 2008-11-25 23:26:41 | Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard |