On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 12:55:08PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 12:39:29PM -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>> Yes, sounds clear to me also!
>
> Here is an updated patch.
Fine by me, so done. (I have cut a few words from the comment,
without changing its meaning.)
--
Mich
On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 12:39:29PM -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> Yes, sounds clear to me also!
Here is an updated patch.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/vacuum.c b/src/backend/commands/vacuum.c
index 580f966499..0acc42af2b 100644
On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 10:45 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 04:59:49PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > That did cross my mind, but I was worried that trying to explain all that
> > here could cause confusion.
> >
> > If PROCESS_MAIN is set (the default), it's time to
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 04:59:49PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> That did cross my mind, but I was worried that trying to explain all that
> here could cause confusion.
>
> If PROCESS_MAIN is set (the default), it's time to vacuum the main
> relation. Otherwise, we can skip this part
On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 09:20:12AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> -* Do the actual work --- either FULL or "lazy" vacuum
> +* If PROCESS_MAIN is set (the default), it's time to vacuum the main
> +* relation. Otherwise, we can skip this part. If required, we'll
> process
> +* the
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 06:12:36PM -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> LGTM.
-* Do the actual work --- either FULL or "lazy" vacuum
+* If PROCESS_MAIN is set (the default), it's time to vacuum the main
+* relation. Otherwise, we can skip this part. If required, we'll process
+* the
On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 5:43 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 05:09:58PM -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > I would move this comment inside of the outer if statement since it is
> > distinguishing between the two branches of the inner if statement.
>
> Oops, done.
>
> > Also, I
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 01:13:37PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 03:48:28PM -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 3:27 PM Nathan Bossart
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 02:40:09PM -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> >> > I noticed in vacuum_rel()
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 03:48:28PM -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 3:27 PM Nathan Bossart
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 02:40:09PM -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>> > I noticed in vacuum_rel() in vacuum.c where table_relation_vacuum() is
>> > called, 4211fbd84 change
On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 3:27 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 02:40:09PM -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > I noticed in vacuum_rel() in vacuum.c where table_relation_vacuum() is
> > called, 4211fbd84 changes the else into an else if [1]. I understand
> > after reading the commi
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 02:40:09PM -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> I noticed in vacuum_rel() in vacuum.c where table_relation_vacuum() is
> called, 4211fbd84 changes the else into an else if [1]. I understand
> after reading the commit and re-reading the code why that is now, but I
> was initially
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 09:37:23AM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 04:51:46PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > That was mostly OK for me, so applied after tweaking a couple of
> > places in the tests (extra explanations, for one), the comments and
> > the code.
I noticed in
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 04:51:46PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> That was mostly OK for me, so applied after tweaking a couple of
> places in the tests (extra explanations, for one), the comments and
> the code.
Thanks!
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 10:53:59PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I don't feel a strong need for that, especially now that we aren't
> modifying params anymore.
That was mostly OK for me, so applied after tweaking a couple of
places in the tests (extra explanations, for one), the comments and
the
On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 02:53:02PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> - if (params->options & VACOPT_FULL)
> + if (params->options & VACOPT_FULL &&
> + params->options & VACOPT_PROCESS_MAIN)
> Perhaps this is a bit under-parenthesized, while reading through it
> once again..
fixed
>
> +
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 09:26:37AM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Thanks for taking a look.
>
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 03:31:48PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > PROCESS_TOAST has that:
> > /* sanity check for PROCESS_TOAST */
> > if ((params->options & VACOPT_FULL) != 0 &&
> >
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 2:26 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 02:21:08PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 12:58:32PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >> Cutting the toast relation name to 'pg_toast' is a bit confusing to me
> >> as we have the pg_toast sc
On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 02:21:08PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 12:58:32PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> Cutting the toast relation name to 'pg_toast' is a bit confusing to me
>> as we have the pg_toast schema. How about using the following query
>> instead to improve
On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 12:58:32PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Cutting the toast relation name to 'pg_toast' is a bit confusing to me
> as we have the pg_toast schema. How about using the following query
> instead to improve the readability?
>
>SELECT
>CASE WHEN c.relname IS NU
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 4:13 AM Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 07:09:53PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2023-Mar-01, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> >> +-- PROCESS_MAIN option
> >> +VACUUM (PROCESS_MAIN FALSE) vactst;
> >> +VACUUM (PROCESS_MAIN FALSE, PROCESS_TOAST FALSE) vact
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 07:09:53PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Maybe instead of reading the log, read values from pg_stat_all_tables.
Ah, right. I was looking at pg_stat_user_tables yesterday, and forgot
that pg_stat_all_tables tracks toast tables, so it should be fine to
do some validation wi
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 07:09:53PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2023-Mar-01, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> +-- PROCESS_MAIN option
>> +VACUUM (PROCESS_MAIN FALSE) vactst;
>> +VACUUM (PROCESS_MAIN FALSE, PROCESS_TOAST FALSE) vactst;
>> +VACUUM (PROCESS_MAIN FALSE, FULL) vactst;
>>
>> Thinking a
On 2023-Mar-01, Michael Paquier wrote:
> +-- PROCESS_MAIN option
> +VACUUM (PROCESS_MAIN FALSE) vactst;
> +VACUUM (PROCESS_MAIN FALSE, PROCESS_TOAST FALSE) vactst;
> +VACUUM (PROCESS_MAIN FALSE, FULL) vactst;
>
> Thinking a bit here. This set of tests does not make sure that the
> main relation
Thanks for taking a look.
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 03:31:48PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> PROCESS_TOAST has that:
> /* sanity check for PROCESS_TOAST */
> if ((params->options & VACOPT_FULL) != 0 &&
> (params->options & VACOPT_PROCESS_TOAST) == 0)
> ereport(ERROR,
>
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 11:08:07AM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> rebased
PROCESS_TOAST has that:
/* sanity check for PROCESS_TOAST */
if ((params->options & VACOPT_FULL) != 0 &&
(params->options & VACOPT_PROCESS_TOAST) == 0)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 10:31:11AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 03:30:15PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 03:24:09PM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> > For completeness, did you consider CLUSTER and REINDEX options as well?
>>
>> I have not, but I can p
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 03:30:15PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 03:24:09PM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > For completeness, did you consider CLUSTER and REINDEX options as well?
>
> I have not, but I can put together patches for those as well.
Are you planning to do that h
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 05:28:25PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> The patch does not apply on top of HEAD as in [1], please post a rebased
> patch:
rebased
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
>From 7a7f96bf4eea5be6cc252dda6bc330e77a6a3316 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nath
On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 at 10:37, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> rebased for cfbot
The patch does not apply on top of HEAD as in [1], please post a rebased patch:
=== Applying patches on top of PostgreSQL commit ID
d540a02a724b9643205abce8c5644a0f0908f6e3 ===
=== applying patch ./v2-0001-add-PROCESS_MAIN-t
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 03:24:09PM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> For completeness, did you consider CLUSTER and REINDEX options as well?
I have not, but I can put together patches for those as well.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
On Thu, 2022-12-29 at 16:00 -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> The motivation for adding this option is to make it easier to VACUUM
> only a
> relation's TOAST table. At the moment, you need to find the TOAST
> table by
> examining a relation's reltoastrelid, and you need USAGE on the
> pg_toast
> sch
rebased for cfbot
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
>From 7e72b0a9f06fdfa00d5320d4c3303e67788878aa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Bossart
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 15:31:49 -0800
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/1] add PROCESS_MAIN to VACUUM
---
doc/src/sgml/ref/vacuum.sgml
32 matches
Mail list logo
