Re: [GENERAL] VACUUM touching file but not updating relation
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [GENERAL] VACUUM touching file but not updating relation |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 15504.1321627638@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: [GENERAL] VACUUM touching file but not updating relation (Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [GENERAL] VACUUM touching file but not updating relation
Re: [GENERAL] VACUUM touching file but not updating relation |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> writes:
>> On 11 November 2011 23:28, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I observe that _bt_delitems_vacuum() unconditionally dirties the page
>>> and writes a WAL record, whether it has anything to do or not; and that
>>> if XLogStandbyInfoActive() then btvacuumscan will indeed call it despite
>>> there being (probably) nothing useful to do. Seems like that could be
>>> improved. The comment explaining why it's necessary to do that doesn't
>>> make any sense to me, either.
>> Well the effect, in the single instances I've checked, is certainly
>> more pronounced for hot_standby, but there still appears to be some
>> occurrences for minimal wal_level too.
> So would you say this is acceptable and normal activity, or is
> something awry here?
Well, it's expected given the current coding in the btree vacuum logic.
It's not clear to me why it was written like that, though.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: