| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: maintenance_work_mem used by Vacuum |
| Date: | 2019-10-17 00:37:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HOR0gp-yXBXDrLrG-EuAsJoi=WxTO9rws1nDRYT-k9YEw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
It's a bit unfortunate that we're doing the pending list flush while the
vacuum memory is allocated at all. Is there any reason other than the way
the callbacks are defined that gin doesn't do the pending list flush before
vacuum does the heap scan and before it allocates any memory using
maintenance_work_mem?
(I'm guessing doing it after vacuum is finished would have different
problems with tuples in the pending queue not getting vacuumed?)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-10-17 00:49:12 | Re: v12.0: segfault in reindex CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-10-16 23:25:08 | Re: ERROR: multixact X from before cutoff Y found to be still running |