Re: [HACKERS] 6.5 TODO list
От | gjerde@icebox.org |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] 6.5 TODO list |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.05.9905111457170.23459-100000@snowman.icebox.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] 6.5 TODO list (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] 6.5 TODO list
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 11 May 1999, Tom Lane wrote: > I think there are two known issues right now: the VACUUM one and > something about DROP TABLE neglecting to delete the additional files > for a multi-segment table. To my mind the VACUUM problem is a "must > fix" because you can't really live without VACUUM, especially not on > a huge database. The DROP problem is less severe since you could > clean up by hand if necessary (not that it shouldn't get fixed of > course, but we have more critical issues to deal with for 6.5). I have been looking at the code for dropping the table. The code in mdunlink() seems to be correct, and *should* work. Of course it don't, so I'll do some more testing tonight and hopefully I can figure out why it doesn't work. As far as the VACUUM problem, I still haven't seen that. I have a couple ~3GB tables, with one growing to 5-6GB in the next month or so. VACUUM runs just fine on both. I just got to thinking, what about indexes > 2GB? With my 3GB table one of the index is 540MB. Both with growth I might get there. Does that work and does it use RELSEG_SIZE? I would guess that the same function(mdunlink, mdcreate, etc) is called for all DROPs and CREATEs(through DestroyStmt, CreateStmt)? I don't understand postgres good enough to answer that for sure(but it does make sense). Ole Gjerde
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: