Horton

Re: GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Pavel Golub <pavel@gf.microolap.com>, Darafei Praliaskouski <me@komzpa.net>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-10-16T09:32:07Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:14 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Pavel Golub <pavel@microolap.com> wrote:
>> DP> The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer
>>
>> Seems  like,  we  may  also  going to hit it and it would be cool this
>> vacuum issue solved for next PG version.
>
> Exactly which patch on this thread is someone proposing for commit?
>

I guess that is the patch I proposed. However I think that there still
is room for discussion because the patch cannot skip to cleanup vacuum
when aggressive vacuum, which is one of the situation that I really
wanted to skip.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

Commits

  1. Fix upper limit for vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor

  2. Increase upper limit for vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor

  3. Fixes for vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor GUC option

  4. Skip full index scan during cleanup of B-tree indexes when possible