Re: [HACKERS] GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Ideriha, Takeshi" <ideriha(dot)takeshi(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.
Date: 2017-11-29 14:05:35
Message-ID: CANP8+jJQ=Nx7uBy5UOPQVbJ+_KmkY67cRjZE3M0wBUC5RMU2DA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 25 September 2017 at 22:34, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:

>> > Here is a small patch that skips scanning btree index if no pending
>> > deleted pages exists.
>> > It detects this situation by comparing pages_deleted with pages_free.
>
> It seems to work to prevent needless cleanup scans.

So this leaves us in the situation that

1. Masahiko's patch has unresolved problems
2. Yura's patch works and is useful

Unless there is disagreement on the above, it seems we should apply
Yura's patch (an edited version, perhaps).

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2017-11-29 14:12:37 Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2017-11-29 13:10:58 Re: PATCH: pgbench - option to build using ppoll() for larger connection counts