public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Antonin Houska <[email protected]>
To: Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: Marcos Pegoraro <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Banck <[email protected]>
Cc: Junwang Zhao <[email protected]>
Cc: Kirill Reshke <[email protected]>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:26:25 +0200
Message-ID: <104580.1743431185@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6059.1743060030@localhost>
References: <[email protected]>
<6059.1743060030@localhost>
Antonin Houska <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 2025-Mar-22, Antonin Houska wrote:
> >
> > > Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I rebased this patch series; here's v09. No substantive changes from v08.
> > > > I made sure the tree still compiles after each commit.
> >
> > I rebased again, fixing a compiler warning reported by CI and applying
> > pgindent to each individual patch. I'm slowly starting to become more
> > familiar with the whole of this new code.
>
> I'm trying to reflect Robert's suggestions about locking [1]. The next version
> should be a bit simpler, so maybe wait for it before you continue studying the
> code.
This is it. A few notes:
* Since there's no unlocking during the processing now, the code to check for
catalog changes was removed.
* Some code moved from 0004 to 0005, where it fits better. (Also the commit
messages of these two parts elaborated a bit more.)
* Regarding the progress monitoring, I do in 0004 what I proposed in [1]:
BeginInternalSubTransaction() now sets a flag that avoids clearing of the
progress state in AbortSubTransaction()
* Although I consider 0005 (Preserve visibility information of the concurrent
data changes.) important, it occurs to me now that it might introduce quite
some overhead.
* 0003 is new in the series. I thought it'll be needed, then I realized it's
not. It might be useful as refactoring though. Please let me know if I
should maintain it or drop it.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/80297.1742989179%40localhost
--
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
view thread (31+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?
In-Reply-To: <104580.1743431185@localhost>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox