Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I like the idea of only having to do a single pass through the table though.
Well, that argument was already overstated: we're not re-reading all of
the table now. Just the pages containing dead line pointers.
> Couldn't Pavan's original plan still work and just not have other clients try
> to remove dead line pointers?
You could simply delay recycling of the really-truly-dead line pointers
until the next VACUUM, I suppose. It's not clear how bad a
line-pointer-bloat problem that might leave you with. (It would still
require tracking whether the last vacuum had completed successfully.
I note that any simple approach to that would foreclose ever doing
partial-table vacuums, which is something I thought was on the table
as soon as we had dead space mapping ability.)
> At least not unless they're also pruning the
> page due to an insert or update anyways?
Please stop pretending that this overhead will only be paid by
insert/update. The current design for pruning does not work that way,
and we do not have a better design available.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
