Re: Summary of plans to avoid the annoyance of Freezing - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: Summary of plans to avoid the annoyance of Freezing
Date
Msg-id 55C8EBA6.90908@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Summary of plans to avoid the annoyance of Freezing  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Summary of plans to avoid the annoyance of Freezing  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 08/10/2015 10:31 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Freezing is not a necessary pre-condition for either of those things, I
> am happy to say. There is confusion here because for ( 1 ) the shrink
> was performed after freezing, but when you have access to the epoch
> there is no need for exhaustive freezing - only in special cases, as
> noted. If we are lucky those special cases will mean a massive reduction
> in I/O. For ( 2 ) a normal VACUUM is sufficient and as Robert observes,
> maybe just HOT is enough.

Yeah, saw your explanation on this on the other thread.  Good point.

Question: does regular vacuum update the visibility map in the same way
vacuum freeze does?

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE - maximum size of GIN pending list Re: HEAD seems to generate larger WAL regarding GIN index
Next
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: checkpointer continuous flushing