| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: optimizing vacuum truncation scans |
| Date: | 2015-07-24 18:10:59 |
| Message-ID: | 55B27FB3.30600@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/22/15 11:11 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I guess add an "Assert(InRecovery || running_a_vacuum);" to
> the visibilitymap_set with a comment there, except that I don't know how
> to implement running_a_vacuum so that it covers manual vacs as well as
> autovac.
static bool RunningVacuum; ? It only needs to be per-backend, right?
If it is that simple then my $0.02 is we should have the assert, not
just a comment.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-07-24 18:21:39 | Re: Proposal for CSN based snapshots |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-07-24 18:06:56 | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |