| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
| Date: | 2016-05-06 20:58:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20160506205824.ysst7mk3k26ztok2@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-05-06 13:54:09 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 05/06/2016 01:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > > > Let's add VACUUM (FORCE) or something like that.
> >
> > Yes, that makes sense.
> >
> >
> > > This is actually inverted. Vacuum by default should vacuum the entire
> > > relation
> >
> > What? Why on earth would that be a good idea? Not to speak of hte fact
> > that that's not been the case since ~8.4?
>
> Sorry, I just meant the default behavior shouldn't change but I do agree
> that we need the ability to keep the same behavior.
Which default behaviour shouldn't change? The one in master where we
skip known frozen pages? Or the released branches where can't skip those?
> > > ,however if we are going to keep the existing behavior of this
> > > patch, VACUUM (FROZEN) seems to be better than (FORCE)?
> >
> > There already is FREEZE - meaning something different - so I doubt it.
>
> Yeah I thought about that, it is the word "FORCE" that bothers me. When you
> use FORCE there is an assumption that no matter what, it plows through
> (think rm -f). So if we don't use FROZEN, that's cool but FORCE doesn't work
> either.
SCANALL?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2016-05-06 21:00:59 | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-05-06 20:58:21 | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |