| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: should vacuum's first heap pass be read-only? |
| Date: | 2022-04-01 00:30:54 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYtugPnuU2+4-n1_POg0NNuDZmC0pzKdsidoS0RsrwTOQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 6:43 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> > The only way the conveyor belt system has any
> > value is if we think that there is some set of circumstances where the
> > heap scan is separated in time from the index vacuum, such that we
> > might sometimes do an index vacuum without having done a heap scan
> > just before.
>
> I agree.
But in http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmoa6kVEeurtyeOi3a+rA2XuynwQmJ_s-h4kUn6-bKMMDRw@mail.gmail.com
(and the messages just before and just after it) we seemed to be
agreeing on a design where that's exactly what happens. It seemed like
a good idea to me at the time, but now it seems like it's a bad idea,
because it involves using the conveyor belt in a way that adds no
value.
Am I confused here?
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-04-01 00:39:28 | Re: head fails to build on SLES 12 (wal_compression=zstd) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-04-01 00:30:31 | Re: [WIP] ALTER COLUMN IF EXISTS |