Gregory Stark wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > Patch applied. Thanks.
> >>
> >> Wait a minute. This patch changes the behavior so that
> >> LockBufferForCleanup is applied to *every* heap page, not
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Patch applied. Thanks.
>>
>> Wait a minute. This patch changes the behavior so that
>> LockBufferForCleanup is applied to *every* heap page, not only the ones
>> where there are remov
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Patch applied. Thanks.
Wait a minute. This patch changes the behavior so that
LockBufferForCleanup is applied to *every* heap page, not only the ones
where there are removable tuples. It's not hard to imagine scenarios
where that results in severe sy
Gregory Stark wrote:
>
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The reason the patch is so short is that it's a kluge. If we really
> > cared about supporting this case, more wide-ranging changes would be
> > needed (eg, there's no need to eat maintenance_work_mem worth of RAM
> > for the de
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The reason the patch is so short is that it's a kluge. If we really
> cared about supporting this case, more wide-ranging changes would be
> needed (eg, there's no need to eat maintenance_work_mem worth of RAM
> for the dead-TIDs array); and a decent respec
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How often does that case come up in the real world, for tables that are
>> large enough that you'd care about vacuum performance?
> I would have had the same objection if it resulted in substantially more
> complex
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> There isn't really any need for the second pass in lazy vacuum if the table
>> has no indexes.
>
> How often does that case come up in the real world, for tables that are
> large enough that you'd care about vacuum perfor
stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There isn't really any need for the second pass in lazy vacuum if the table
> has no indexes.
How often does that case come up in the real world, for tables that are
large enough that you'd care about vacuum performance?
regards, tom lan
