Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing
Date: 2019-04-03 15:55:00
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoas581jpJ0TPaA38OhjXHgbLy8z1fuuHH7CaNkrboZJeA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 1:32 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Attached the updated version patches including the
> DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING part (0003).

I am confused about nleft_dead_tuples. It looks like it gets
incremented whenever we set tupgone = true, regardless of whether we
are doing index cleanup. But if we ARE doing index cleanup then the
dead tuple will not be left. And if we are not doing index vacuum
then we still don't need this for anything, because tups_vacuumed is
counting the same thing. I may be confused. But if I'm not, then I
think this should just be ripped out, and we should only keep
nleft_dead_itemids.

As far as VacOptTernaryValue, I think it would be safer to change this
so that VACOPT_TERNARY_DEFAULT = 0. That way palloc0 will fill in the
value that people are likely to want by default, which makes it less
likely that people will accidentally write future code that doesn't
clean up indexes.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2019-04-03 16:01:15 Re: pg_basebackup ignores the existing data directory permissions
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2019-04-03 15:26:20 Re: Concurrency bug with vacuum full (cluster) and toast