From: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Allow single table VACUUM in transaction block |
Date: | 2022-11-15 09:13:36 |
Message-ID: | CANbhV-EX3yQ=SKU4xkCKOxuLp39QtBfdd4N19o0BouXZVamK_A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 19:52, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 at 03:10, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 08:20, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > > Temp tables are actually easier, since we don't need any of the
> > > concurrency features we get with lazy vacuum.
>
> > Thoughts?
>
> New patch, which does this, when in a xact block
>
> 1. For temp tables, only VACUUM FULL is allowed
> 2. For persistent tables, an AV task is created to perform the vacuum,
> which eventually performs a vacuum
>
> The patch works, but there are various aspects of the design that need
> input. Thoughts?
New version.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
single_table_vacuum_in_xact.v4.patch | application/octet-stream | 17.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-11-15 09:31:44 | Re: archive modules |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-11-15 09:07:33 | Re: List of Bitmapset (was Re: ExecRTCheckPerms() and many prunable partitions) |