On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:45 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > On 2/27/17 12:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Do you have an idea about that, or any ideas for experiments we could try? >> >> Nothing occurs to me right now, unfortunately. However, my general >> sense is that it would probably be just fine when >> vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor was 0.0, but there might be >> non-linear increases in "the serious type of index bloat" as the >> proposed new setting was scaled up. I'd be much more worried about >> that. > > This was originally marked "Waiting on Author" due to some minor > problems with the patch but on the whole there are much larger issues at > play. > > The tenor seems to be that we should somehow prove the effectiveness of > this patch one way or the other, but nobody is quite sure how to go > about that, and in fact it would probably be different for each AM. > > Sawada, if you have ideas about how to go about this then we would need > to see something very soon. If not, I think marking this RWF is the > best course of action. >
Thank you for the remind. I've post new idea about this. After got consensus about the design, I'm going to update the patch. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
