| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 16:00:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WznYdRy5NOmLMYb+PVKCKTAs+Q0SOH6WSiGYOXJEx=MJKQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:49 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> 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.
>
> I don't see why that's not a good idea.
I don't think that it's worth going to that trouble. Testing multiple
passes isn't hard -- not in any real practical sense.
I accept that there needs to be some solution to the problem of the
tests timing out on slow running buildfarm animals. Your
PG_TEST_SKIP_SLOW proposal seems like a good approach.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Corey Huinker | 2024-07-22 16:05:34 | Re: Statistics Import and Export |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-07-22 15:54:36 | Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin |