From: Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: VACUUMs and WAL
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:19:04 +0200
Message-ID: <1225196344.7694.2.camel@huvostro> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1225188645.3971.118.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
References: <1225183785.3971.114.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
<1225187130.7721.5.camel@huvostro>
<1225188645.3971.118.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 10:10 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 11:45 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 08:49 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > Looking at a VACUUM's WAL records makes me think twice about the way we
> > > issue a VACUUM.
> > >
> > > 1. First we scan the heap, issuing a HEAP2 clean record for every block
> > > that needs cleaning.
> >
> > IIRC the first heap pass just collects info and does nothing else.
> > Is this just an empty/do-nothing WAL record ?
>
> 8.3 changed that; it used to work that way. I guess I never looked at
> the amount of WAL being generated.
I can't see how it is safe to do anything more than just lookups on
first pass.
There will be dangling index pointers if the system crashes/is rebooted
or the vacuum is just interrupted after cleaning some heap pages but
before cleaning corresponding index pages.
---------------
Hannu
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: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: hannu@2ndQuadrant.com, simon@2ndQuadrant.com
Subject: Re: VACUUMs and WAL
In-Reply-To: <1225196344.7694.2.camel@huvostro>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox