Horton

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

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2016-11-17T21:38:50Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> wrote:
> Attached is patch 0002 with pgindent applied over it
>
> I don't think there's any other formatting issue, but feel free to
> point a finger to it if I missed any

Hmm, I had imagined making all of the segments the same size rather
than having the size grow exponentially.  The whole point of this is
to save memory, and even in the worst case you don't end up with that
many segments as long as you pick a reasonable base size (e.g. 64MB).

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Commits

  1. Prefetch blocks during lazy vacuum's truncation scan

  2. Explain unaccounted for space in pgstattuple.