From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Testing autovacuum wraparound (including failsafe) |
Date: | 2021-05-25 00:14:36 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WznqVesSxWOejO0WCemEBo5d_g4c11pU=LbO2+o-BMAcYw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 12:10 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Since there is the condition "vacrel->num_index_scans == 0" we could
> enter the failsafe mode even if the table is less than 4GB, if we
> enter lazy_check_wraparound_failsafe() after executing more than one
> index scan. Whereas a vacuum on the table that is less than 4GB and
> has no index never enters the failsafe mode. I think we can remove
> this condition since I don't see the reason why we don't allow to
> enter the failsafe mode only when the first-time index scan in the
> case of such tables. What do you think?
I'm convinced -- this does seem like premature optimization now.
I pushed a version of the patch that removes that code just now.
Thanks
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ranier Vilela | 2021-05-25 00:37:41 | Possible pointer var TupleDesc rettupdesc used not initialized (src/backend/optimizer/util/clauses.c) |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-05-24 22:30:13 | Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW |