Re: Visibility map, partial vacuums

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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