Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tu6Wy-00053h-V9 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 19:14:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tu6Wy-0003HM-GD for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 19:14:12 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([87.238.57.229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tu6Wx-0003HH-Kp for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 19:14:11 +0000 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([74.208.4.201]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tu6Wu-0007ny-ER for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 19:14:11 +0000 Received: from mailout-us.gmx.com ([172.19.198.44]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmxus002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MC0mK-1TlGpD1kpM-008opu for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 20:14:07 +0100 Received: (qmail 1951 invoked by uid 0); 12 Jan 2013 19:14:07 -0000 Received: from 76.255.19.161 by rms-us018 with HTTP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:14:03 -0500 From: "Kevin Grittner" Message-ID: <20130112191404.255800@gmx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: 9.2.1 & index-only scans : abnormal heap fetches after VACUUM FULL To: "Amit Kapila" ,"Josh Berkus" ,pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org X-Authenticated: #138763884 X-Flags: 0001 X-Mailer: GMX.com Web Mailer x-registered: 0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-GMX-UID: q9CDcIgC3zOlOQ09Lnwh+ct+IGRvbwC6 X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:09 AM Josh Berkus wrote: >> Surely VACUUM FULL should rebuild the visibility map, and make >> tuples in the new relation all-visible, no? Certainly it seems odd to me that VACUUM FULL leaves the the table in a less-well maintained state in terms of visibility than a "normal" vacuum. VACUUM FULL should not need to be followed by another VACUUM. > I think it cannot made all visible. I don't think all tuples in the relation are necessarily visible to all transactions, but the ones which are should probably be flagged that way. > How about if any transaction in SSI mode is started before Vacuum > Full, should it see all tuples. There are no differences between visibility rules for serializable transactions (SSI) and repeatable read transactions. It should be based on whether any snapshots exist which can still see the tuple. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers