From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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 21:00:59 |
Message-ID: | 572D060B.5050503@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/06/2016 01:58 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Joshua D. Drake (jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com) wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Isn't that exactly what this FORCE option being contemplated would do
> though? Plow through the entire relation, regardless of what the VM
> says is all frozen or not?
>
> Seems like FORCE is a good word for that to me.
Except that we aren't FORCING a vacuum. That is the part I have
contention with. To me, FORCE means:
No matter what else is happening, we are vacuuming this relation (think
locks).
But I am also not going to dig in my heals. If that is truly what
-hackers come up with, thank you at least considering what I said.
Sincerely,
JD
>
> Thanks!
>
> Stephen
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh berkus | 2016-05-06 21:01:34 | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-05-06 20:58:24 | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |