On 02/16/2014 10:19 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 1/24/14, 3:52 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Bruce Momjianbr...@momjian.us wrote:
Is everyone else OK with this approach? Updated patch attached.
Hi,
I started to look at this patch and i found that it fails an
On 2014-02-15 21:34:15 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Thank you for the thorough review. Unless someone else can complete
this, I think it should be marked as returned with feedback. I don't
think I am going to learn enough to complete this during the
commit-fest.
Agreed. Marked it as such.
On 1/24/14, 3:52 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Bruce Momjianbr...@momjian.us wrote:
Is everyone else OK with this approach? Updated patch attached.
Hi,
I started to look at this patch and i found that it fails an assertion
as soon as you run a VACUUM FULL
Hi,
*** end_heap_rewrite(RewriteState state)
*** 281,286
--- 284,290
true);
RelationOpenSmgr(state-rs_new_rel);
+ update_page_vm(state-rs_new_rel, state-rs_buffer,
state-rs_blockno);
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 04:16:40PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
*** end_heap_rewrite(RewriteState state)
*** 281,286
--- 284,290
true);
RelationOpenSmgr(state-rs_new_rel);
+
On 2014-02-15 12:50:14 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 04:16:40PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
*** end_heap_rewrite(RewriteState state)
*** 281,286
--- 284,290
true);
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 07:08:40PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
Can you be more specific about the cluster.c idea? I see
copy_heap_data() in cluster.c calling HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum() with a
'buf' just like the code I am working in.
Yes, it does. But in contrast to your patch it does so
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Is everyone else OK with this approach? Updated patch attached.
Hi,
I started to look at this patch and i found that it fails an assertion
as soon as you run a VACUUM FULL after a lazy VACUUM even if those are
on
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 04:52:55PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Is everyone else OK with this approach? Updated patch attached.
Hi,
I started to look at this patch and i found that it fails an assertion
as soon
On 28 November 2013 22:17, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that you've needed to modify SetHintBits() to make this work
is pretty nasty. I'm not exactly sure what to do about that, but it
doesn't seem good.
That makes me feel bad also.
I think we should be looking for some
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 05:38:05PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I wonder if we ought to mark each page as all-visible in
raw_heap_insert() when we first initialize it, and then clear the flag
when we come across a tuple that isn't all-visible. We could try to
set hint bits on the tuple
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 05:38:05PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I wonder if we ought to mark each page as all-visible in
raw_heap_insert() when we first initialize it, and then clear the flag
when we come across a tuple
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 02:01:52PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 05:38:05PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I wonder if we ought to mark each page as all-visible in
raw_heap_insert() when we first
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 02:14:03PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Amit Kapila wrote:
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:09 AM Josh Berkus wrote:
Surely VACUUM FULL should rebuild the visibility map, and make
tuples in the
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 05:17:07PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I need to know this is the right approach, and need to know what things
are wrong or missing.
The fact that you've needed to modify SetHintBits() to make this work
is pretty nasty. I'm not exactly sure what to do about that, but
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 02:14:03PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Amit Kapila wrote:
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:09 AM Josh Berkus wrote:
Surely VACUUM FULL should rebuild the visibility map, and make
tuples in the new relation all-visible, no?
Certainly it seems odd to me that
Amit Kapila wrote:
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:09 AM Josh Berkus wrote:
Surely VACUUM FULL should rebuild the visibility map, and make
tuples in the new relation all-visible, no?
Certainly it seems odd to me that VACUUM FULL leaves the the table
in a less-well maintained state in terms of
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:01 PM Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com
wrote:
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:09 AM Josh Berkus wrote:
Surely VACUUM FULL should rebuild the visibility map, and make
tuples
in
the new relation
How do we want to handle the case where VACUUM FULL clears the
visibility map, causing loss of index-only scans?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2012-11/msg00317.php
Do we document this behavior or add a TODO item?
--
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us
On 01/09/2013 03:07 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
How do we want to handle the case where VACUUM FULL clears the
visibility map, causing loss of index-only scans?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2012-11/msg00317.php
Do we document this behavior or add a TODO item?
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:09 AM Josh Berkus wrote:
On 01/09/2013 03:07 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
How do we want to handle the case where VACUUM FULL clears the
visibility map, causing loss of index-only scans?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2012-
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:09 AM Josh Berkus wrote:
Surely VACUUM FULL should rebuild the visibility map, and make tuples
in
the new relation all-visible, no?
I think it cannot made all visible.
How about if
22 matches
Mail list logo
