| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.2.1 & index-only scans : abnormal heap fetches after VACUUM FULL |
| Date: | 2014-02-16 20:19:44 |
| Message-ID: | 53011D60.8020005@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/24/14, 3:52 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Bruce Momjian<bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> >
>> >Is everyone else OK with this approach? Updated patch attached.
>> >
> Hi,
>
> I started to look at this patch and i found that it fails an assertion
> as soon as you run a VACUUM FULL after a lazy VACUUM even if those are
> on unrelated relations. For example in an assert-enabled build with
> the regression database run:
>
> VACUUM customer;
> [... insert here whatever commands you like or nothing at all ...]
> VACUUM FULL tenk1;
Is anyone else confused/concerned that regression testing didn't pick this up? The vacuum.sql test does not test lazy vacuum at all, and I can't seem to find any other tests that test lazy vacuum either...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Beck | 2014-02-16 20:36:57 | Re: New hook after raw parsing, before analyze |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-02-16 18:34:45 | Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT |