On 2014-11-06 19:03:20 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 11/6/14, 5:40 PM, Greg Stark wrote: > >On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >>I think the retry logical is a largely pointless complication of already > >>complex enough code. You're fixing a problem for which there is > >>absolutely no evidence of its existance. Yes, this happens > >>occasionally. But it's going to be so absolutely minor in comparison to > >>just about every other source of bloat. > > For some reason I don't have Andres' original email, so I'll reply > here: I agree with you, and my original proposal was simply to log how > many pages were skipped, but that was objected to. Simply logging this > extra information would be a patch of a dozen lines or less.
The objection was that it's unneccessary complexity. So you made the patch a magnitude more complex *and* added logging? That doesn't make much sense. > The problem right now is there's no way to actually obtain evidence > that this is (or isn't) something to worry about, because we just > silently skip pages. If we had any kind of tracking on this we could > stop guessing. :( What's the worst consequence this could have? A couple pages not marked all visible and not immediately cleaned up. That's not particularly harmful. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
