Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin
Date: 2024-07-22 15:49:53
Message-ID: 890165.1721663393@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 Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 9:32 AM Melanie Plageman
> <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Andres has suggested in the past that we allow maintenance_work_mem be
>> set to a lower value or introduce some kind of development GUC so that
>> we can more easily test multiple pass index vacuuming. Do you think
>> this would be worth it?

> No, I don't.

I don't see why that's not a good idea.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2024-07-22 15:50:10 Re: Enhance pg_dump multi-threaded streaming (WAS: Re: filesystem full during vacuum - space recovery issues)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2024-07-22 15:48:10 Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin