Re: Reviewing freeze map code
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5402.1465221188@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Reviewing freeze map code (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Reviewing freeze map code
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: >> So other idea is to have GUC parameter, vacuum_even_frozen_page for example. >> If this parameter is set true (false by default), we do vacuum whole >> table forcibly and re-generate visibility map. >> The advantage of this idea is that we don't necessary to expand VACUUM >> syntax and relatively easily can remove this parameter if it's not >> necessary anymore. > Attached is a sample patch that controls full page vacuum by new GUC parameter. I find this approach fairly ugly ... it's randomly inconsistent with other VACUUM parameters for no very defensible reason. Taking out GUCs is not easier than taking out statement parameters; you risk breaking applications either way. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: