Re: decoupling table and index vacuum

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: decoupling table and index vacuum
Date: 2021-09-24 18:48:40
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZ=Ww_EU7DYwmPPg_nbuFyPz1baCDEE40yzcm3U5OGazw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 6:08 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> Have you started any work on this project? I think that it's a very good idea.

Actually, I have. I've been focusing on trying to create a general
infrastructure for conveyor belt storage. An incomplete and likely
quite buggy version of this can be found here:

https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=users/rhaas/postgres.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/conveyor

Mark Dilger has been helping me debug it, but it's still very early
days. I was planning to wait until it was a little more baked before
posting it to the list, but since you asked...

Once that infrastructure is sufficiently mature, then the next step, I
think, would be to try to use it to store dead TIDs.

And then after that, one has to think about how autovacuum scheduling
ought to work in a world where table vacuuming and index vacuuming are
decoupled.

This is a very hard problem, and I don't expect to solve it quickly. I
do hope to keep plugging away at it, though.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-09-24 19:11:33 Re: BUG #16583: merge join on tables with different DB collation behind postgres_fdw fails
Previous Message Robert Haas 2021-09-24 18:38:53 Re: extensible options syntax for replication parser?