Horton

Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>, Anastasia Lubennikova <lubennikovaav@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-01-06T22:35:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Greetings,

* Michael Paquier (michael.paquier@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> wrote:
> > They did apply at the time, but I think major work on vacuum was
> > pushed since then, and also I was traveling so out of reach.
> >
> > It may take some time to rebase them again. Should I move to needs
> > review myself after that?
> 
> Sure, if you can get into this state, please feel free to update the
> status of the patch yourself.

We're now over a month since this status update- Claudio, for this to
have a chance during this commitfest to be included (which, personally,
I think would be great as it solves a pretty serious issue..), we really
need to have it be rebased and updated.  Once that's done, as Michael
says, please change the patch status back to 'Needs Review'.

Thanks!

Stephen

Commits

  1. Prefetch blocks during lazy vacuum's truncation scan

  2. Explain unaccounted for space in pgstattuple.