Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC
Date
Msg-id 200606261531.k5QFVFp24010@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC  (Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net>)
Responses Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC  (Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > > pass 3: clean heap based on ctid from pass 1
> > > 
> > > If yo do it this way, you dont need to invent new data structures to
> > > pass extra info about CITC internals to passes 2 and 3
> > > 
> > > On more thing - when should free space map be notified about free space
> > > in pages with CITC chains ?
> > 
> > Uh, well, I am thinking we only free CITC space when we are going to use
> > it for an UPDATE, rather than free things while doing an operation.  It
> > is good to keep the cleanup overhead out of the main path as much as
> > possible.
> 
> So vacuum should only remove dead CITC chains and leave the ones with
> live tuples to CITC internal use ?

Yes, it has to.  What else would it do?  Add index entries?

> That would also suggest that pages having live CITC chains and less than
> N% of free space should mot be reported to FSM.

Parts of the CITC that are not visible can be used for free space by
vacuum, but the visible part is left alone.

--  Bruce Momjian   bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC
Next
From: "Dave Page"
Date:
Subject: Re: Anyone still care about Cygwin? (was Re: [CORE] GPL