| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Automatic free space map filling |
| Date: | 2006-05-01 18:35:24 |
| Message-ID: | 7301.1146508524@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
>>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>>>> So for you it would certainly help a lot to be able to vacuum the first
>>>> X pages of the big table, stop, release locks, create new transaction,
>>>> continue with the next X pages, lather, rinse, repeat.
>>> Bruce and I were discussing this the other day; it'd be pretty easy to
>>> make plain VACUUM start a fresh transaction immediately after it
>>> finishes a scan heap/clean indexes/clean heap cycle.
> Except that wouldn't help when vacuuming a lot of small tables; each one
> would get it's own transaction.
What's your point? There's only a problem for big tables, and VACUUM
already does use a new transaction for each table.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-05-01 18:36:17 | Re: Automatic free space map filling |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-01 18:19:30 | Re: Automatic free space map filling |