Re: Reviewing freeze map code
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZ3Q3ypceH-QT4qhaVyPQACgDoUugGna2MXDw3AE6HpNQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Reviewing freeze map code (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Reviewing freeze map code
Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: >> Attached is a sample patch that controls full page vacuum by new GUC parameter. > > Don't we want a reloption for that? Just wondering... Why? Just for consistency? I think the bigger question here is whether we need to do anything at all. It's true that, without some new option, we'll lose the ability to forcibly vacuum every page in the relation, even if all-frozen. But there's not much use case for that in the first place. It will be potentially helpful if it turns out that we have a bug that sets the all-frozen bit on pages that are not, in fact, all-frozen. Otherwise, what's the use? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: