public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Masahiko Sawada <[email protected]>
To: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]>
Cc: Bossart, Nathan <[email protected]>
Cc: John Naylor <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum?
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 13:40:12 +0900
Message-ID: <CAD21AoCz8=-jBTUBcQSveOMCLkJ=yUw5TYtfVPWKTXiLuan_CQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CAFBsxsFL5LoWanSLDjt_SjS9=FU_9XWi22iHMexRS2SubkX-Vw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAH2-Wz=Z5Jjd1y8kCfXd6e-GSvKiL8XEmxoJJFNHcekM4aw-Vg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAH2-Wzn3pE8rNzBxh-Qpmq=zxFWFpoC7LWLbyDg_1XZ3wJOtUA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFBsxsG-VDhXYa25uERfDGD4dO_AZ3d+Dv2NF+DJBADZiXejpw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAH2-Wznop1jM3j6E1xTcG--kFQ1hW5cMmM8B1965Mz+uUg6HSg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAH2-Wz=9mfmSL5QDG9GmXt2Av8NBvNSo+CF7FPW3g80awHab7Q@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAH2-Wz=Eb-jrhFK6=_WNT6V1JAK-qFOTu_4-yOpAhkEES4VeNA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:46 PM Andres Freund <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-12-20 17:17:26 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 8:41 PM Bossart, Nathan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I like the idea of having a built-in function that does the bare
> > > minimum to resolve wraparound emergencies, and I think providing some
> > > sort of simple progress indicator (even if rudimentary) would be very
> > > useful.
> >
> > If John doesn't have time to work on this during the Postgres 15
> > cycle, and if nobody else picks it up, then we should at least do the
> > bare minimum here: force the use of the failsafe in single user mode
> > (regardless of the age of relfrozenxid/relminmxid, which in general
> > might not be that old in tables where VACUUM might need to do a lot of
> > work). Attached quick and dirty patch shows what this would take. If
> > nothing else, it seems natural to define running any VACUUM in single
> > user mode as an emergency.
>
> As I said before I think this is a bad idea. I'm fine with adding a vacuum
> parameter forcing failsafe mode. And perhaps a hint to suggest it in single
> user mode. But forcing it is a bad idea - single user isn't just used for
> emergencies (c.f. initdb, which this patch would regress) and not every
> emergency making single user mode useful is related to wraparound.
+1
BTW a vacuum automatically enters failsafe mode under the situation
where the user has to run a vacuum in the single-user mode, right?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
view thread (32+ 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]
Subject: Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum?
In-Reply-To: <CAD21AoCz8=-jBTUBcQSveOMCLkJ=yUw5TYtfVPWKTXiLuan_CQ@mail.gmail.com>
* 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