Re: Option to not use ringbuffer in VACUUM, using it in failsafe mode

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Option to not use ringbuffer in VACUUM, using it in failsafe mode
Date: 2023-01-11 21:18:34
Message-ID: 669645.1673471914@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 11:18 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> I don't like that - it's also quite useful to disable use of ringbuffers when
>> you actually need to clean up indexes. Especially when we have a lot of dead
>> tuples we'll rescan indexes over and over...

> That's a fair point.

> My vote goes to "REUSE_BUFFERS", then.

I wonder whether it could make sense to allow a larger ringbuffer size,
rather than just the limit cases of "on" and "off".

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2023-01-11 21:30:42 Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences, take 2
Previous Message Robert Haas 2023-01-11 21:16:24 Re: pgsql: Add new GUC createrole_self_grant.