| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hot Standby btree delete records and vacuum_defer_cleanup_age |
| Date: | 2010-12-09 07:55:46 |
| Message-ID: | 1291881346.2872.1988.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 00:16 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 09.12.2010 00:10, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 08.12.2010 16:00, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> Heikki pointed out to me that the btree delete record processing does
> >> not respect vacuum_defer_cleanup_age. It should.
> >>
> >> Attached patch to implement that.
> >>
> >> Looking to commit in next few hours barring objections/suggestions, to
> >> both HEAD and 9_0_STABLE, in time for next minor release.
> >
> > Please note that it was Noah Misch that raised this a while ago:
> >
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-11/msg01919.php
>
> On closer look, that's not actually the same issue, sorry for the noise..
Heikki, this one *is* important. Will fix. Thanks for the analysis Noah.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-12-09 09:48:25 | Re: On-the-fly index tuple deletion vs. hot_standby |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-12-09 07:52:11 | Re: Hot Standby btree delete records and vacuum_defer_cleanup_age |