On 7.2.2013 00:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz> wrote:
>>> Ummmm, what you mean by "catalog bump"?
>
>> There is a catalog number in src/include/catalog/catversion.h, which
>> when changed forces one to redo initdb.
>
>> Formally I guess it is only for system catalog changes, but I thought
>> it was used for any on-disk changes during development cycles.
>
> Yeah, it would be appropriate to bump the catversion if we're creating a
> new PGDATA subdirectory.
>
> I'm not excited about keeping code to take care of the lack of such a
> subdirectory at runtime, as I gather there is in the current state of
> the patch. Formally, if there were such code, we'd not need a
No, there is nothing to handle that at runtime. The directory is created
at initdb and the patch expects that (and fails if it's gone).
> catversion bump --- the rule of thumb is to change catversion if the new
> postgres executable would fail regression tests without a run of the new
> initdb. But it's pretty dumb to keep such code indefinitely, when it
> would have no more possible use after the next catversion bump (which is
> seldom more than a week or two away during devel phase).
>
>>> What do you mean by "stats collector activity"? Is it reading/writing a
>>> lot of data, or is it just using a lot of CPU?
>
>> Basically, the launching of new autovac workers and the work that that
>> entails. Your patch reduces the size of data that needs to be
>> written, read, and parsed for every launch, but not the number of
>> times that that happens.
>
> It doesn't seem very reasonable to ask this patch to redesign the
> autovacuum algorithms, which is essentially what it'll take to improve
> that. That's a completely separate layer of code.
My opinion, exactly.
Tomas
