On 2016-06-06 05:34:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Attached is a sample patch that controls full page vacuum by new GUC > >> parameter. > > > > Don't we want a reloption for that? Just wondering... > > Why? Just for consistency? I think the bigger question here is > whether we need to do anything at all. It's true that, without some > new option, we'll lose the ability to forcibly vacuum every page in > the relation, even if all-frozen. But there's not much use case for > that in the first place. It will be potentially helpful if it turns > out that we have a bug that sets the all-frozen bit on pages that are > not, in fact, all-frozen. Otherwise, what's the use?
Except that we right now don't have any realistic way to figure out whether this new feature actually does the right thing. Which makes testing this *considerably* harder than just VACUUM (dwim). I think it's unacceptable to release this feature without a way that'll tell that it so far has/has not corrupted the database. Would that, in a perfect world, be vacuum? No, probably not. But since we're not in a perfect world... Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers