From: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Odd VACUUM behavior when it is expected to truncate last empty pages |
Date: | 2011-08-03 21:10:53 |
Message-ID: | CABOikdNxP+ZrhqaHwdW8nV37be+WoPkbXeHCfhHkrgir+eT1Fg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Pavan Deolasee
<pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> The only problem, other than a surprising behavior that you noted,
> that I see with this approach is that we might repeatedly try to
> truncate a relation which in fact does not have anything to truncate.
> The worst thing is we might unnecessarily take an exclusive lock on
> the table.
>
So it seems we tried to fix this issue sometime back
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg01994.php
But I don't quite understand how the fix would really work.
nonempty_pages would most likely be set at a value lower than relpages
if the last page in the relation is all-visible according to the
visibility map. Did we mean to test (nonempty_pages > 0) there ? But
even that may not work except for the case when there are no dead
tuples in the relation.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Earth Analizer | 2011-08-04 05:03:48 | How to get last Error Message/Code |
Previous Message | Terry Lee Tucker | 2011-08-03 20:29:50 | Re: running out of oids |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | James Robinson | 2011-08-03 21:19:15 | Postgres / plpgsql equivalent to python's getattr() ? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-08-03 21:04:56 | Re: mosbench revisited |