Re: GIN fast-insert vs autovacuum scheduling
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: GIN fast-insert vs autovacuum scheduling |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20090323190114.GD16373@alvh.no-ip.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | GIN fast-insert vs autovacuum scheduling (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: GIN fast-insert vs autovacuum scheduling
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > On top of those issues, there are implementation problems in the > proposed relation_has_pending_indexes() check: it has hard-wired > knowledge about GIN indexes, which means the feature cannot be > extended to add-on index AMs; and it's examining indexes without any > lock whatsoever on either the indexes or their parent table. (And > we really would rather not let autovacuum take a lock here.) I wonder if it's workable to have GIN send pgstats a message with number of fast-inserted tuples, and have autovacuum check that number as well as dead/live tuples. ISTM this shouldn't be considered part of either vacuum or analyze at all, and have autovacuum invoke it separately from both, with its own decision equations and such. We could even have a scan over pg_class just for GIN indexes to implement this. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: