From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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: | 2011-03-11 07:46:10 |
Message-ID: | 4D79D342.7070108@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11.03.2011 06:21, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Simon Riggs<simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Is this an open item for 9.1?
Simon fixed it, commit b9075a6d2f9b07a00262a670dd60272904c79dce.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-03-11 08:03:55 | Re: Hot Standby btree delete records and vacuum_defer_cleanup_age |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-03-11 07:45:40 | Re: On-the-fly index tuple deletion vs. hot_standby |