On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Attached is a sample patch that controls full page vacuum by new GUC >>> parameter. >> >> Don't we want a reloption for that? Just wondering... > > Why? Just for consistency? I think the bigger question here is > whether we need to do anything at all. It's true that, without some > new option, we'll lose the ability to forcibly vacuum every page in > the relation, even if all-frozen. But there's not much use case for > that in the first place. It will be potentially helpful if it turns > out that we have a bug that sets the all-frozen bit on pages that are > not, in fact, all-frozen. Otherwise, what's the use? >
I cannot agree with using this parameter as a reloption. We set it true only when the serious bug is discovered and we want to re-generate the visibility maps of specific tables. I thought that control by GUC parameter would be convenient rather than adding the new option. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
