| From: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Florian Pflug" <fgp(dot)phlo(dot)org(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: HOT patch - version 15 |
| Date: | 2007-09-06 14:22:17 |
| Message-ID: | 46E00D19.6070503@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Florian Pflug wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> That's a pretty sensitive tradeoff, we want to prune often to cut the
>> long HOT chains, but not too often because it's pretty expensive to
>> acquire the vacuum lock and move tuples around. I don't think we've
>> found the optimal solution yet. Separating the pruning and defragmenting
>> might help.
>
> Does defragmenting force writing a full page image to the WAL afterwards?
> Or does it just log the fact that the page was defragmented, and the actual
> work is redone on recovery?
No, you just log a note that it was defragmented.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-09-06 15:06:46 | Re: HOT patch - version 15 |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-09-06 14:20:57 | Re: HOT patch - version 15 |