Horton

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

David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
To: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>
Cc: 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: 2017-04-08T14:10:18Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 4/7/17 10:19 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> 
> I rebased the early free patch (patch 3) to apply on top of the v9
> patch 2 (it needed some changes). I recognize the early free patch
> didn't get nearly as much scrutiny, so I'm fine with commiting only 2
> if that one's ready to go but 3 isn't.
> 
> If it's decided to go for fixed 128M segments and a binary search of
> segments, I don't think I can get that ready and tested before the
> commitfest ends.

This submission has been moved to CF 2017-07.

-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net

Commits

  1. Prefetch blocks during lazy vacuum's truncation scan

  2. Explain unaccounted for space in pgstattuple.