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
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. |
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? |