Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From John Naylor
Subject Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Date
Msg-id CAFBsxsFTDCD0Mqs2QtLq2w4x3bxkTy-TpmK32V7nA8HDKW+v4g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 1:17 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 6:00 PM John Naylor
> <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >
> > Attached is a rebase to fix conflicts from recent commits.
>
> I have reviewed v22-0022* patch and I have some comments.
>
> 1.
> >It also changes to the column names max_dead_tuples and num_dead_tuples and to
> >show the progress information in bytes.
>
> I think this statement needs to be rephrased.

Could you be more specific?

> 3.
>
> We are changing the min value of 'maintenance_work_mem' to 2MB. Should
> we do the same for the 'autovacuum_work_mem'?

Yes, we should change that, too. We've discussed previously that autovacuum_work_mem is possibly rendered unnecessary by this work, but we agreed that that should be a separate thread. And needs additional testing to verify.

I agree with your other comments.

--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: John Naylor
Date:
Subject: Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Next
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: Re: Syncrep and improving latency due to WAL throttling