Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum
Date
Msg-id 22583.1066401398@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum  (Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>)
Responses Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum  (Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>)
List pgsql-hackers
Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> writes:
> Would it be possible to have a vacuum variant that would just shuffle thr. 
> shared buffers and not touch disk at all?

What would be the use of that?  You couldn't predict *anything* about
the coverage.  Maybe you find all the free space in a particular table,
but most likely you don't.

In any case an I/O-free vacuum is impossible since once you have decided
to recycle a particular tuple, you don't have any option about removing
the corresponding index entries first.  So unless both the table and all
its indexes are in RAM, you will be incurring I/O.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Matthew T. O'Connor"
Date:
Subject: Re: Mapping Oracle types to PostgreSQL types
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum