| From: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: New strategies for freezing, advancing relfrozenxid early |
| Date: | 2023-01-26 04:12:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAFBsxsGf=aCRHaBuqwNnNpXbLDUkLQPnj1chCoDHKK04nAxqgw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:11 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I am. Just not every tradeoff. I just don't see any useful tradeoffs
purely
> based on the relation size.
I expressed reservations about relation size six weeks ago:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 12:16 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 12:29 AM John Naylor
> <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > If the number of unfrozen heap pages is the thing we care about,
perhaps that, and not the total size of the table, should be the parameter
that drives freezing strategy?
>
> That's not the only thing we care about, though.
That was followed by several paragraphs that never got around to explaining
why table size should drive freezing strategy. Review is a feedback
mechanism alerting the patch author to possible problems. Listening to
feedback is like vacuum, in a way: If it hurts, you're not doing it enough.
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-01-26 04:24:35 | Re: New strategies for freezing, advancing relfrozenxid early |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-01-26 04:04:00 | Re: suppressing useless wakeups in logical/worker.c |