Re: GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:45 PM, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
> On 2/27/17 12:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you have an idea about that, or any ideas for experiments we could try?
>>
>> Nothing occurs to me right now, unfortunately. However, my general
>> sense is that it would probably be just fine when
>> vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor was 0.0, but there might be
>> non-linear increases in "the serious type of index bloat" as the
>> proposed new setting was scaled up. I'd be much more worried about
>> that.
>
> This was originally marked "Waiting on Author" due to some minor
> problems with the patch but on the whole there are much larger issues at
> play.
>
> The tenor seems to be that we should somehow prove the effectiveness of
> this patch one way or the other, but nobody is quite sure how to go
> about that, and in fact it would probably be different for each AM.
>
> Sawada, if you have ideas about how to go about this then we would need
> to see something very soon. If not, I think marking this RWF is the
> best course of action.
>

Thank you for the remind. I've post new idea about this. After got
consensus about the design, I'm going to update the patch.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center