From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(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: | 2016-06-06 15:28:08 |
Message-ID: | 20160606152808.qnkmjixskxq5vtoo@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-06-06 05:34:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> Attached is a sample patch that controls full page vacuum by new GUC parameter.
> >
> > Don't we want a reloption for that? Just wondering...
>
> Why? Just for consistency? I think the bigger question here is
> whether we need to do anything at all. It's true that, without some
> new option, we'll lose the ability to forcibly vacuum every page in
> the relation, even if all-frozen. But there's not much use case for
> that in the first place. It will be potentially helpful if it turns
> out that we have a bug that sets the all-frozen bit on pages that are
> not, in fact, all-frozen. Otherwise, what's the use?
Except that we right now don't have any realistic way to figure out
whether this new feature actually does the right thing. Which makes
testing this *considerably* harder than just VACUUM (dwim). I think it's
unacceptable to release this feature without a way that'll tell that it
so far has/has not corrupted the database. Would that, in a perfect
world, be vacuum? No, probably not. But since we're not in a perfect world...
Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-06-06 15:28:37 | Re: installcheck failing on psql_crosstab |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-06 15:27:53 | Re: installcheck failing on psql_crosstab |