Re: pgsql: Compute XID horizon for page level index vacuum on primary.

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Compute XID horizon for page level index vacuum on primary.
Date: 2019-05-15 21:44:53
Message-ID: CA+hUKGJddCwmmUS0nr4_xrc4FnT1Ci4hbkW7yRzbHqHDajL=XQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 3:53 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2019-05-15 12:01:07 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> >> This is listed as an open item to resolve for 12. IIUC the options on
> >> the table are:
> >>
> >> 1. Do nothing, and ship with effective_io_concurrency + 10.
> >> 2. Just use effective_io_concurrency without the hardwired boost.
> >> 3. Switch to a new GUC maintenance_io_concurrency (or some better name).
> >>
> >> I vote for option 3. I have no clue how to set it, but at least users
> >> have a fighting chance of experimenting and figuring it out that way.
> >> I volunteer to write the patch if we get a consensus.
>
> > I'd personally, unsurprisingly perhaps, go with 1 for v12. I think 3 is
> > also a good option - it's easy to imagine to later use it for for
> > VACUUM, ANALYZE and the like. I think 2 is a bad idea.
>
> FWIW, I also agree with settling for #1 at this point. A new GUC would
> make more sense if we have multiple use-cases for it, which we probably
> will at some point, but not today. I'm concerned that if we invent a
> GUC now, we might find out that it's not really usable for other cases
> in future (e.g., default value is no good for other cases). It's the
> old story that inventing an API with only one use-case in mind leads
> to a bad API.
>
> So yeah, let's leave this be for now, ugly as it is. Improving it
> can be future work.

Cool, I moved it to the resolved section.

--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2019-05-15 23:54:49 pgsql: Remove obsolete nbtree insertion comment.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-05-15 21:27:06 pgsql: Remove no-longer-used typedef.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-05-15 21:47:20 Re: Are ctid chaining loops safe without relation size checks?
Previous Message Andres Freund 2019-05-15 21:44:01 Re: Are ctid chaining loops safe without relation size checks?