cation).
But is my understanding correct that there is no reason to believe
there are such issues for read-only queries, or queries that do not
actually conflict (at the SQL level) with concurrent transactions?
(Ignoring the impact it might have on old transactions hanging around
for a longer t
ep much more often.
> Possibly before every ExecProcNode call would be enough.
>
> Even then you have to worry about the i/o and cpu resources used by by
> tuplesort. And there are degenerate cases where a single ExecProcNode could do
> a lot of i/o such as a large scan looking for a
of the vacuum_delay_point() and call it in each
loop iteration in ExecPlan().
And then costmetically, probably rename various things so that
non-vacuum specific cost accounting is no longer named as if it were.
Does this sound vaguely sensible? Is there an obvious show-stopper I
am missing?
