Horton

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

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
To: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@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: 2018-01-25T07:11:22Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> wrote:
> Huh. That was simpler than I thought.
>
> Attached rebased versions.

Hi Claudio,

FYI the regression test seems to have some run-to-run variation.
Though it usually succeeds, recently I have seen a couple of failures
like this:

========= Contents of ./src/test/regress/regression.diffs
*** /home/travis/build/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/src/test/regress/expected/vacuum.out
2018-01-24 01:41:28.200454371 +0000
--- /home/travis/build/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/src/test/regress/results/vacuum.out
2018-01-24 01:51:07.970049937 +0000
***************
*** 128,134 ****
  SELECT pg_relation_size('vactst', 'main');
   pg_relation_size
  ------------------
!                 0
  (1 row)

  SELECT count(*) FROM vactst;
--- 128,134 ----
  SELECT pg_relation_size('vactst', 'main');
   pg_relation_size
  ------------------
!              8192
  (1 row)

  SELECT count(*) FROM vactst;
======================================================================

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

Commits

  1. Prefetch blocks during lazy vacuum's truncation scan

  2. Explain unaccounted for space in pgstattuple.