Re: Reviewing freeze map code

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Reviewing freeze map code
Date: 2016-05-06 20:54:09
Message-ID: 572D0471.3040009@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 05/06/2016 01:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:

>>> Let's add VACUUM (FORCE) or something like that.
>
> Yes, that makes sense.
>
>
>> This is actually inverted. Vacuum by default should vacuum the entire
>> relation
>
> What? Why on earth would that be a good idea? Not to speak of hte fact
> that that's not been the case since ~8.4?

Sorry, I just meant the default behavior shouldn't change but I do agree
that we need the ability to keep the same behavior.

>> ,however if we are going to keep the existing behavior of this
>> patch, VACUUM (FROZEN) seems to be better than (FORCE)?
>
> There already is FREEZE - meaning something different - so I doubt it.

Yeah I thought about that, it is the word "FORCE" that bothers me. When
you use FORCE there is an assumption that no matter what, it plows
through (think rm -f). So if we don't use FROZEN, that's cool but FORCE
doesn't work either.

Sincerely,

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2016-05-06 20:58:21 Re: Reviewing freeze map code
Previous Message Christian Ullrich 2016-05-06 20:52:03 Re: Initial release notes created for 9.6