Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin
Date: 2024-07-22 15:17:03
Message-ID: CAH2-Wzkrowjc2v-DML0zA2gHF=+KzFvodoyPKR-4hLND7XVZsQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 9:32 AM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Andres has suggested in the past that we allow maintenance_work_mem be
> set to a lower value or introduce some kind of development GUC so that
> we can more easily test multiple pass index vacuuming. Do you think
> this would be worth it?

No, I don't.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2024-07-22 15:17:55 Re: Remove dependence on integer wrapping
Previous Message Robert Haas 2024-07-22 15:14:47 Re: [18] Policy on IMMUTABLE functions and Unicode updates