Horton

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

Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: 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: 2017-12-04T05:38:21Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rebased version of the patches attached
>
> The status of the patch is misleading:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/15/844/. This was marked as waiting
> on author but a new version has been published. Let's be careful.
>
> The last patches I am aware of, aka those from
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAGTBQpZHTf2JtShC=ijc9wzEipo3XOKWQhx+8WiP7ZjPC3FBEg@mail.gmail.com,
> do not apply. I am moving the patch to the next commit fest with a
> waiting on author status, as this should be reviewed, but those need a
> rebase.

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?

Commits

  1. Prefetch blocks during lazy vacuum's truncation scan

  2. Explain unaccounted for space in pgstattuple.