pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Reviewing freeze map code
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2016 09:53:08 -0400
Message-ID: <5402.1465221188@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD21AoDBzsdiCxQ0SaOswACEUM92Fe2+1ipmVb4Ma6NAgQFnjg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160502214818.psk3lmgyihk6gr3k@alap3.anarazel.de>
	<20160505000840.epatoq6d2e556446@alap3.anarazel.de>
	<CA+TgmobF=86sa=6dF30jaiEFOhZnO+asOB5j69PynPCqtaz9xA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD21AoBL0HPaWM4ZkLmd_h2c1DAS-J9KrxbwqSd7no3XYVCRSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoZ1k4jnbkZTnbRmCA4T1RVGd0dqaHm6Y0RoT2knN6qm_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD21AoCTLAu2niddmUVd2Y1p0OVWgGnT51_+J81=qb3HAwVtFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmobpQLGh7YH_gN+Y=L7J-W0XeWfH5_qiAs0a+Xp7H4uS=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD21AoDo5DOQJXUw_gw0kwJm+q0ux_fMgWGC6tkthZFWR+CxKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoZqMxB6Cyj7_2=SH=WyEBJBsrRW9ioTQvWju9Sw4rRcZw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD21AoA8XwpyrakFZHrX8+mfySk7y6gHh4+D-ZGA-R9Axx_PJg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD21AoDBzsdiCxQ0SaOswACEUM92Fe2+1ipmVb4Ma6NAgQFnjg@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So other idea is to have GUC parameter, vacuum_even_frozen_page for example.
>> If this parameter is set true (false by default), we do vacuum whole
>> table forcibly and re-generate visibility map.
>> The advantage of this idea is that we don't necessary to expand VACUUM
>> syntax and relatively easily can remove this parameter if it's not
>> necessary anymore.

> Attached is a sample patch that controls full page vacuum by new GUC parameter.

I find this approach fairly ugly ... it's randomly inconsistent with other
VACUUM parameters for no very defensible reason.  Taking out GUCs is not
easier than taking out statement parameters; you risk breaking
applications either way.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



view thread (256+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <5402.1465221188@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../5402.1465221188@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/5402.1465221188@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

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: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, sawada.mshk@gmail.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, andres@anarazel.de
  Subject: Re: Reviewing freeze map code
  In-Reply-To: <5402.1465221188@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* 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