On 2016-05-06 13:48:09 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 05/06/2016 01:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > > On 2016-05-02 14:48:18 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > 77a1d1e Department of second thoughts: remove PD_ALL_FROZEN.
> > >
> > > Nothing to say here.
> > >
> > > > fd31cd2 Don't vacuum all-frozen pages.
> > >
> > > Hm. I do wonder if it's going to bite us that we don't have a way to
> > > actually force vacuuming of the whole table (besides manually rm'ing the
> > > VM). I've more than once seen VACUUM used to try to do some integrity
> > > checking of the database. How are we actually going to test that the
> > > feature works correctly? They'd have to write checks ontop of
> > > pg_visibility to see whether things are borked.
> >
> > Let's add VACUUM (FORCE) or something like that.
Yes, that makes sense.
> This is actually inverted. Vacuum by default should vacuum the entire
> relation
What? Why on earth would that be a good idea? Not to speak of hte fact
that that's not been the case since ~8.4?
>,however if we are going to keep the existing behavior of this
> patch, VACUUM (FROZEN) seems to be better than (FORCE)?
There already is FREEZE - meaning something different - so I doubt it.
Andres