On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 12:09:24AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 07:19:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Currently, when a tuple is reclaimed by VACUUM, we just mark its item
> >> pointer as unused (and hence recyclable). I think it
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 07:19:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Currently, when a tuple is reclaimed by VACUUM, we just mark its item
>> pointer as unused (and hence recyclable). I think it might be safe to
>> decrease pd_lower if there are unused pointers
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 07:19:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I can't seem to find info about this in the docs, or on the web.
>
> http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/storage-page-layout.html
>
> Currently, when a tuple is reclaimed by VACUUM
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can't seem to find info about this in the docs, or on the web.
http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/storage-page-layout.html
Currently, when a tuple is reclaimed by VACUUM, we just mark its item
pointer as unused (and hence recyclable). I t
