Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From John Naylor
Subject Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often
Date
Msg-id CAFBsxsGLDxNus6=8LiQihrjvOrZuu7JdpC3ykDk2vzciTU6m+A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often  (Jim Nasby <nasbyj@amazon.com>)
Responses Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 12:42 AM Jim Nasby <nasbyj@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> Doesn't the dead tuple space grow as needed? Last I looked we don't allocate up to 1GB right off the bat.

Incorrect.

> Of course, if the patch that eliminates the 1GB vacuum limit gets committed the situation will be even worse.

If you're referring to the proposed tid store, I'd be interested in seeing a reproducible test case with a m_w_m over 1GB where it makes things worse than the current state of affairs.

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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Raising the SCRAM iteration count
Next
From: "Drouvot, Bertrand"
Date:
Subject: Re: Track IO times in pg_stat_io