> On 18 Aug 2017, at 13:39, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Indeed they do, and that's what motivated this patch. But I'd need
>> TB-sized tables to set up something like that. I don't have the
>> hardware or time available to do that (vacuum on bloated TB-sized
>> tables can take days in my experience). Scale 4000 is as big as I can
>> get without running out of space for the tests in my test hardware.
>>
>> If anybody else has the ability, I'd be thankful if they did test it
>> under those conditions, but I cannot. I think Anastasia's test is
>> closer to such a test, that's probably why it shows a bigger
>> improvement in total elapsed time.
>>
>> Our production database could possibly be used, but it can take about
>> a week to clone it, upgrade it (it's 9.5 currently), and run the
>> relevant vacuum.
>
> It looks like I won't be able to do that test with a production
> snapshot anytime soon.
>
> Getting approval for the budget required to do that looks like it's
> going to take far longer than I thought.
>
> Regardless of that, I think the patch can move forward. I'm still
> planning to do the test at some point, but this patch shouldn't block
> on it.
This patch has been marked Ready for committer after review, but wasn’t
committed in the current commitfest so it will be moved to the next. Since it
no longer applies cleanly, it’s being reset to Waiting for author though.
cheers ./daniel
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers