From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing |
Date: | 2018-11-08 17:56:00 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobZ68Oaf2V7NxFDx8eiPHSW-U_b=zyOQ+kcCs6k91B-qQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 4:36 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> We already have disable_page_skipping option, not (page_skipping
> false). So ISMT disable_index_cleanup would be more natural.
Sure.
> Also,
> since what to do with this option is not only skipping vacuum indexes
> but also skipping removeing dead tuples on heap, I think that the
> option should have a more understandable name for users indicating
> that both it removes dead tuples less than the normal vacuum and it's
> aimed to freeze tuple more faster. Of course we document them, though.
Well, I actually don't think that you should control two behaviors
with the same option. If you want to vacuum and skip index cleanup,
you should say VACUUM (disable_index_cleanup). If you want to vacuum,
disable index cleanup, and skip aggressively, you should say VACUUM
(freeze, disable_index_cleanup). Both behaviors seem useful.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-11-08 17:57:55 | Re: Should new partitions inherit their tablespace from their parent? |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2018-11-08 17:54:18 | Re: security release |