Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure that we have any use for the top level you propose; the
> > attached patch just uses the two lower levels, and I think it fits
> > autovacuum usage just fine. Thanks for the idea.
>
> Of course, there's no need to pass the relkind;
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I'm not sure that we have any use for the top level you propose; the
> attached patch just uses the two lower levels, and I think it fits
> autovacuum usage just fine. Thanks for the idea.
Of course, there's no need to pass the relkind; it goes inside the
pg_class tuple.
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> >Right now we just plow
> >ahead using a pg_class seqscan, which avoids locking the relations
> >just for the sake of verifying whether they need work.
>
> We should stick with that, and refactor the reloptions code as needed to
> be able to
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> So I've been progressing on revising the autovacuum patch to make it
> work with the current reloptions. We have a number of options:
> 1. Call heap_open() for every relation that we're going to check, and
>examine the reloptions via the relcache.
>I'm not sure t
Hi,
So I've been progressing on revising the autovacuum patch to make it
work with the current reloptions. We have a number of options:
1. Call heap_open() for every relation that we're going to check, and
examine the reloptions via the relcache.
I'm not sure that I like this very much. R
