Re: Teaching users how they can get the most out of HOT in Postgres 14
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-06-04T06:15:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 10:30:08AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 9:53 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: >> Another concern with this approach is what it >> means for the VACUUM command itself. I haven't added an 'auto' >> spelling that is accepted by the VACUUM command in this POC version. >> But do I need to at all? Can that just be implied by not having any >> INDEX_CLEANUP option? > > It seems to me that it's better to have INDEX_CLEANUP option of VACUUM > command support AUTO for consistency. Do you have any concerns about > supporting it? I have read through the patch, and I am surprised to see that this only makes possible to control the optimization at relation level. The origin of the complaints is that this index cleanup optimization has been introduced as a new rule that gets enforced at *system* level, so I think that we should have an equivalent with a GUC to control the behavior for the whole system. With what you are presenting here, one could only disable the optimization for each relation, one-by-one. If this optimization proves to be a problem, it's just going to be harder to users to go through all the relations and re-tune autovacuum. Am I missing something? -- Michael
Commits
-
Support disabling index bypassing by VACUUM.
- 3499df0dee8c 14.0 landed
-
Teach VACUUM to bypass unnecessary index vacuuming.
- 5100010ee4d5 14.0 cited