Simon Riggs wrote:
> You haven't explained how saving the dead-tuple-list could be done
> in a safe mannner and it seems risky to me.
The files are placed in a new directory $PGDATA/pg_vacuum
with the name: spcNode.dbNode.relNode for each relations
which have been interrupted during vacuum.
It has the format likes:
3. Dead Tuple list
The files are removed
- when original physical heap files are removed,
- when vacuum full have been issued,
- or after the content has been read in memory.
Is there any potential big risk there? Correct me if I am
> Deferring completion of VACUUM means deferring refreshing the FSM.
I borrow the code from DSM patch to merge free space info
into FSM when vacuum stops.
> Are you saying you know for certain this lock is held for a long time,
> or are you just saying you think it is? If you have some evidence for
> long truncation times then that would be a separate issue of concern,
> since that might starve out normal users. Please say more?
Sorry. I *thought* it is. The benchmark has not shown such
kind of problem anyway. Thanks for the clarification for me. :)
lee.galy _at_ oss.ntt.co.jp
NTT Open Source Software Center
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD||Date: 2007-02-28 10:19:44|
|Subject: Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2007-02-28 09:51:46|
|Subject: Re: Dead Space Map version 2|