On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > I think taking a second whack at setting the visibility bit is a fine > idea, but let's drop all the rest of this premature optimization. > Fair enough. I thought about doing it that way but was worried that an additional page scan will raise eyebrows. While it does not affect the common case because we would have done that scan anyways in the subsequent vacuum, but in the worst case where most of the pages not remain all-visible by the time we come back to the second phase of vacuum, this additional line pointer scan will add some overhead. With couple of pluses for the approach, I won't mind doing it this way though. Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee http://www.linkedin.com/in/pavandeolasee -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
