Re: [GENERAL] VACUUM touching file but not updating relation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [GENERAL] VACUUM touching file but not updating relation
Date
Msg-id 15504.1321627638@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] VACUUM touching file but not updating relation  (Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] VACUUM touching file but not updating relation  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Re: [GENERAL] VACUUM touching file but not updating relation  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> writes:
>> On 11 November 2011 23:28, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I observe that _bt_delitems_vacuum() unconditionally dirties the page
>>> and writes a WAL record, whether it has anything to do or not; and that
>>> if XLogStandbyInfoActive() then btvacuumscan will indeed call it despite
>>> there being (probably) nothing useful to do.  Seems like that could be
>>> improved.  The comment explaining why it's necessary to do that doesn't
>>> make any sense to me, either.

>> Well the effect, in the single instances I've checked, is certainly
>> more pronounced for hot_standby, but there still appears to be some
>> occurrences for minimal wal_level too.

> So would you say this is acceptable and normal activity, or is
> something awry here?

Well, it's expected given the current coding in the btree vacuum logic.
It's not clear to me why it was written like that, though.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: vpath builds and verbose error messages
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Do missed autoheader run for previous commit.