On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 11:47, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 10:15, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 01:40, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 8:02 PM Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 17:59, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:54 PM Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Patches attached. > > > > > > 1. vacuum_anti_wraparound.v2.patch > > > > > > 2. vacuumdb_anti_wrap.v1.patch - depends upon (1) > > > > > > > > > > I don't like the use of ANTI_WRAPAROUND as a name for this new option. > > > > > Wouldn't it make more sense to call it AGGRESSIVE? Or maybe something > > > > > else, but I dislike anti-wraparound. > > > > > > > > -1 for using the term AGGRESSIVE, which seems likely to offend people. > > > > I'm sure a more descriptive term exists. > > > > > > Since we use the term aggressive scan in the docs, I personally don't > > > feel unnatural about that. But since this option also disables index > > > cleanup when not enabled explicitly, I’m concerned a bit if user might > > > get confused. I came up with some names like FEEZE_FAST and > > > FREEZE_MINIMAL but I'm not sure these are better. > > > > FREEZE_FAST seems good. > > > > > BTW if this option also disables index cleanup for faster freezing, > > > why don't we disable heap truncation as well? > > > > Good idea > > Patch attached, using the name "FAST_FREEZE" instead.
And the additional patch also. -- Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
vacuumdb_fast_freeze.v2.patch
Description: Binary data
