Hi,
On 2023-04-24 14:36:36 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2023-Apr-22, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I'm afraid we'll need TransactionIdRetreatSafely() again, when we convert
> > more
> > things to 64bit xids (lest they end up with the same bug as fixed by
> > be504a3e974), so it's perhaps worth
? vacuum_defer_cleanup_age+pg_dirtyread
give PostgreSQL something like "flashback query" in Oracle.
Best regards,
Phil
De : Andres Freund
Envoyé : dimanche 23 avril 2023 00:47
À : Alvaro Herrera
Cc : Justin Pryzby ; pgsql-hack...@postgresql.org
; Amit Kapila
Objet : Re:
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 8:36 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> The one thing that IMO makes it less confusing is to have it return the
> value rather than modifying it in place.
Yeah, I don't understand why we have these functions that modify the
value in place. Those are probably convenient here and
On 2023-Apr-22, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-04-13 13:18:38 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > > Updated patch attached. I think we should either apply something like that
> > > patch, or at least add a to the docs.
> >
> > I gave this patch a look. The only code change is that
> >
Hi,
On 2023-04-13 13:18:38 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2023-Apr-11, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > Updated patch attached. I think we should either apply something like that
> > patch, or at least add a to the docs.
>
> I gave this patch a look. The only code change is that
>
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 03:07:37PM -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> +1.
+1. I agree with the upthread discussion and support removing
vacuum_defer_cleanup_age.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
On 4/14/23 1:15 PM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
Let's remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age, and put a note in the release notes
that recommends using statement_timeout and hot_standby_feedback = on
on the standby instead.
That should have pretty much the same effect, and it is measured in
time and not in
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 at 13:15, Laurenz Albe wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2023-04-14 at 18:43 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2023-Apr-14, Greg Stark wrote:
> > > I assume people would use hot_standby_feedback if they have streaming
> > > replication.
> >
> > Yes, either that or a replication slot.
>
> A
On Fri, 2023-04-14 at 18:43 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2023-Apr-14, Greg Stark wrote:
> > I assume people would use hot_standby_feedback if they have streaming
> > replication.
>
> Yes, either that or a replication slot.
A replication slot doesn't do anything against snapshot conflicts,
On 2023-Apr-14, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 at 09:47, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> >
> > Let me restate [1] in a different way.
> >
> > Using a large enough dataset, I did qualitatively look at overall usage
> > of both "vacuum_defer_cleanup_age" and compared to
> >
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 at 09:47, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>
> Let me restate [1] in a different way.
>
> Using a large enough dataset, I did qualitatively look at overall usage
> of both "vacuum_defer_cleanup_age" and compared to
> "hot_standby_feedback", given you can use both to accomplish similar
On 4/14/23 8:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 11:06 PM Laurenz Albe wrote:
I am not against this in principle, but I know that there are people using
this parameter; see the discussion linked in
https://postgr.es/m/e1jkzxe-0006dw...@gemulon.postgresql.org
I can't say if they
> On 14 Apr 2023, at 14:30, Robert Haas wrote:
> ..as Peter rightly says, XID age is likely a poor proxy for
> whatever people really care about, so I don't think continuing to have
> a setting that works like that is a good plan.
Agreed, and removing it is likely to be a good vehicle for
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 11:06 PM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> I am not against this in principle, but I know that there are people using
> this parameter; see the discussion linked in
>
> https://postgr.es/m/e1jkzxe-0006dw...@gemulon.postgresql.org
>
> I can't say if they have a good use case for that
On Thu, 2023-04-13 at 12:16 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 4/13/23 11:32 AM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> > On 4/12/23 11:34 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:50 PM Andres Freund
>
> > > +1 to do one of the above. I think there is a good chance that
> > > somebody might
On 4/13/23 11:32 AM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
On 4/12/23 11:34 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:50 PM Andres Freund
+1 to do one of the above. I think there is a good chance that
somebody might be doing more harm by using it so removing this
shouldn't be a problem.
On 4/12/23 11:34 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:50 PM Andres Freund wrote:
On 2023-04-11 11:33:01 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 10:00:48AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
I don't know whether others think we should apply it this release, given the
"late
On 2023-Apr-11, Andres Freund wrote:
> Updated patch attached. I think we should either apply something like that
> patch, or at least add a to the docs.
I gave this patch a look. The only code change is that
ComputeXidHorizons() and GetSnapshotData() no longer handle the case
where
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:50 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2023-04-11 11:33:01 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 10:00:48AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I don't know whether others think we should apply it this release, given
> > > the
> > > "late submission", but I
Hi,
On 2023-04-11 11:33:01 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 10:00:48AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I don't know whether others think we should apply it this release, given the
> > "late submission", but I tend to think it's not worth caring the
> > complication
> > of
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 10:00:48AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't know whether others think we should apply it this release, given the
> "late submission", but I tend to think it's not worth caring the complication
> of vacuum_defer_cleanup_age forward.
I don't see any utility in waiting;
On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 2:34 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2023-Mar-17, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > I started writing a test for vacuum_defer_cleanup_age while working on the
> > fix
> > referenced above, but now I am wondering if said energy would be better
> > spent
> > removing
> On 24 Mar 2023, at 21:27, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-03-23 10:18:35 +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 22 Mar 2023, at 18:00, Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>>> It wasn't actually that much work to write a patch to remove
>>> vacuum_defer_cleanup_age, see the attached.
>>
>> -and
Hi,
On 2023-03-23 10:18:35 +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 22 Mar 2023, at 18:00, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > It wasn't actually that much work to write a patch to remove
> > vacuum_defer_cleanup_age, see the attached.
>
> -and provide protection
> against
> +provides
> On 22 Mar 2023, at 18:00, Andres Freund wrote:
> It wasn't actually that much work to write a patch to remove
> vacuum_defer_cleanup_age, see the attached.
-and provide protection
against
+provides protection against
relevant rows being removed by vacuum, but the former
Hi,
On 2023-03-22 11:44:20 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 10:33:57AM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2023-Mar-17, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > > I started writing a test for vacuum_defer_cleanup_age while working on
> > > the fix
> > > referenced above, but now I am
On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 10:33:57AM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2023-Mar-17, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > I started writing a test for vacuum_defer_cleanup_age while working on the
> > fix
> > referenced above, but now I am wondering if said energy would be better
> > spent
> > removing
On 2023-Mar-17, Andres Freund wrote:
> I started writing a test for vacuum_defer_cleanup_age while working on the fix
> referenced above, but now I am wondering if said energy would be better spent
> removing vacuum_defer_cleanup_age alltogether.
+1 I agree it's not useful anymore.
> I don't
On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 12:09 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As evidenced by the bug fixed in be504a3e974, vacuum_defer_cleanup_age is
> not
> heavily used - the bug was trivial to hit as soon as
> vacuum_defer_cleanup_age
> is set to a non-toy value. It complicates thinking about visibility
29 matches
Mail list logo
