| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: VACUUM (DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING on) |
| Date: | 2020-11-16 22:18:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwbw11ALHkPzA4F24=Ws6Copwqd8dbveQsyM=uKon_c2Cw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:52 PM Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> The docs are misleading for this feature, since they say:
> "This option disables all page-skipping behavior, and is
> intended to be used only when the contents of the visibility map are
> suspect, which should happen only if there is a hardware or software
> issue causing database corruption."
>
[...]
>
> The code is quite clear: DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING makes the vacuum into
> an aggressive vacuum. Line 487, heap_vacuum_rel(). Aggressive vacuums
> can still skip a page that is frozen, and rely on the visibility map
> for that information.
>
> So the docs are wrong - we don't disable *all* page-skipping and it is
> not appropriate to warn users away from this feature by saying "is
> intended to be used only when the contents of the visibility map are
> suspect".
>
This patch seems mis-placed, at least in HEAD. If DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING
isn't doing what the documentation says it should, but instead provides
identical behavior to FREEZE, then the bug should be fixed in HEAD. I'd
argue for batch-patching it as well.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | luis.roberto | 2020-11-16 22:33:07 | Re: enable_incremental_sort changes query behavior |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-11-16 21:53:51 | Re: pgbench: option delaying queries till connections establishment? |