On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> I can't see the objection to replacing something inadvertently removed >> in 9.0, especially since it is a 1 line patch and is accompanied by >> copious technical evidence. > > I am not sure which part of "this isn't a substitute for what happened > before 9.0" you fail to understand. > > As for "copious technical evidence", I saw no evidence provided > whatsoever that this patch really did anything much to fix the > reported problem.
Just so we're looking at the same data, graph attached. > Yeah, it would help during the initial scan > of the old rel, but not during the sort or reindex steps. As Greg points out, the sort is not really of concern (for now). > (And as for the thoroughness of the technical analysis, the patch > doesn't even catch the second CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in copy_heap_data; > which would at least provide some relief for the sort part of the > problem, though only in the last pass of sorting.) I'm sure Gabriele can add those things as well - that also looks like another 1 line change. I'm just observing that the patch as-is appears effective and I feel it is important. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
<<attachment: vacuum_full_delay.png>>
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
