Re: [GENERAL] Odd VACUUM behavior when it is expected to truncate last empty pages
От | Pavan Deolasee |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [GENERAL] Odd VACUUM behavior when it is expected to truncate last empty pages |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABOikdNxP+ZrhqaHwdW8nV37be+WoPkbXeHCfhHkrgir+eT1Fg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [GENERAL] Odd VACUUM behavior when it is expected to truncate last empty pages (Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [GENERAL] Odd VACUUM behavior when it is expected to truncate
last empty pages
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The only problem, other than a surprising behavior that you noted, > that I see with this approach is that we might repeatedly try to > truncate a relation which in fact does not have anything to truncate. > The worst thing is we might unnecessarily take an exclusive lock on > the table. > So it seems we tried to fix this issue sometime back http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg01994.php But I don't quite understand how the fix would really work. nonempty_pages would most likely be set at a value lower than relpages if the last page in the relation is all-visible according to the visibility map. Did we mean to test (nonempty_pages > 0) there ? But even that may not work except for the case when there are no dead tuples in the relation. Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: