| From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel heap vacuum |
| Date: | 2025-04-05 20:16:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAAKRu_atVy1RAOwRFwEAy0is-mRPay0cxGUO++SdOCHgB-bSKQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 5:35 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > I haven't looked closely at this version but I did notice that you do
> > not document that parallel vacuum disables eager scanning. Imagine you
> > are a user who has set the eager freeze related table storage option
> > (vacuum_max_eager_freeze_failure_rate) and you schedule a regular
> > parallel vacuum. Now that table storage option does nothing.
>
> Good point. That restriction should be mentioned in the documentation.
> I'll update the patch.
Yea, I mean, to be honest, when I initially replied to the thread
saying I thought temporarily disabling eager scanning for parallel
heap vacuuming was viable, I hadn't looked at the patch yet and
thought that there was a separate way to enable the new parallel heap
vacuum (separate from the parallel option for the existing parallel
index vacuuming). I don't like that this disables functionality that
worked when I pushed the eager scanning feature.
- Melanie
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2025-04-05 20:17:50 | Re: In-placre persistance change of a relation |
| Previous Message | Fabien Coelho | 2025-04-05 20:14:39 | Re: Add partial :-variable expansion to psql \copy |