Re: decoupling table and index vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: decoupling table and index vacuum
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZ=Ww_EU7DYwmPPg_nbuFyPz1baCDEE40yzcm3U5OGazw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: decoupling table and index vacuum  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: decoupling table and index vacuum
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 6:08 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> Have you started any work on this project? I think that it's a very good idea.

Actually, I have. I've been focusing on trying to create a general
infrastructure for conveyor belt storage. An incomplete and likely
quite buggy version of this can be found here:

https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=users/rhaas/postgres.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/conveyor

Mark Dilger has been helping me debug it, but it's still very early
days. I was planning to wait until it was a little more baked before
posting it to the list, but since you asked...

Once that infrastructure is sufficiently mature, then the next step, I
think, would be to try to use it to store dead TIDs.

And then after that, one has to think about how autovacuum scheduling
ought to work in a world where table vacuuming and index vacuuming are
decoupled.

This is a very hard problem, and I don't expect to solve it quickly. I
do hope to keep plugging away at it, though.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: extensible options syntax for replication parser?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #16583: merge join on tables with different DB collation behind postgres_fdw fails