Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum?
От | Masahiko Sawada |
---|---|
Тема | Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAD21AoBXPxmCowqauR4DLU8zVNrbngewbQOQuXqJF89chQa=Zg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum? (John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 4:14 AM John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 12:46 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 7:04 AM Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote: > > > > > > I guess I'm ultimately imagining the new options as replacing the > > > vacuumdb implementation. IOW vacuumdb would just use MIN_(M)XID_AGE > > > behind the scenes (as would a new top-level command). > > > > I had the same idea. > > This seems to be the motivating reason for wanting new configurability > on the server side. In any case, new knobs are out of scope for this > thread. If the use case is compelling enough, may I suggest starting a > new thread? The purpose of this thread is to provide a way for users to run vacuum only very old tables (while skipping index cleanup, etc.), and the way is not limited to introducing a new top-level VACUUM statement yet, right? A new top-level VACUUM statement you proposed seems a good idea but trying to achieve it by extending the current VACUUM statement is also a good idea. So I think the ideas like MIN_XID_AGE option and new table selector in VACUUM statement are relevant to this thread. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: