| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum and OldestXmin |
| Date: | 2007-11-22 19:14:57 |
| Message-ID: | 1195758897.4246.264.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 19:02 +0000, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Even if we could use PageIsPrunable, it would be a bad thing from a
> robustness point of view. If we ever failed to set the Prunable-flag on
> a page for some reason, VACUUM would never remove the dead tuples.
That's a killer reason, I suppose. I was really trying to uncover what
the thinking was, so we can document it. Having VACUUM ignore it
completely seems wrong.
> Besides, I don't remember anyone complaining about VACUUM's CPU usage,
> so it doesn't really matter.
Recall anybody saying how much they love it? ;-)
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Markus Schiltknecht | 2007-11-22 19:37:20 | Re: Ordered Append Node |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-11-22 19:02:06 | Re: Autovacuum and OldestXmin |