On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:45 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote:
> On 2/27/17 12:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Do you have an idea about that, or any ideas for experiments we could try?
>> Nothing occurs to me right now, unfortunately. However, my general
>> sense is that it would probably be just fine when
>> vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor was 0.0, but there might be
>> non-linear increases in "the serious type of index bloat" as the
>> proposed new setting was scaled up. I'd be much more worried about
>> that.
> This was originally marked "Waiting on Author" due to some minor
> problems with the patch but on the whole there are much larger issues at
> play.
> The tenor seems to be that we should somehow prove the effectiveness of
> this patch one way or the other, but nobody is quite sure how to go
> about that, and in fact it would probably be different for each AM.
> Sawada, if you have ideas about how to go about this then we would need
> to see something very soon.  If not, I think marking this RWF is the
> best course of action.

Thank you for the remind. I've post new idea about this. After got
consensus about the design, I'm going to update the patch.


Masahiko Sawada
NTT Open Source Software Center

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to