On Sep 30, 2009, at 5:13 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
decibel <deci...@decibel.org> wrote:
*any* step that improves dealing with table bloat is extremely
welcome, as right now you're basically stuck rebuilding the table.
+1
Although, possibly more irritating than actually rebuilding it is
evaluating borderline bloat situations to determine if they will "work
themselves out" over time or whether you need to bite the bullet to do
aggressive maintenance. Having some way for routine vacuums (or any
other routine process, currently available or that could be scheduled)
to "nibble away" at moderate bloat without significant performance or
usability impact would make life easier for at least *some* DBAs.
Kevin, do you have tools that allow you to clear out the end of a
table? That part is at least mostly possible from userland (get list
of ctids from end of table, update those records to move them, rinse,
repeat) but even if you do all that there's no guarantee that a
vacuum will get the exclusive lock it needs to truncate the table.
So while something that makes it easier to clean out the end of a
table would be good, I think the critical need is a way to make
vacuum more aggressive about obtaining the exclusive lock.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect deci...@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
