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 <and...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
