Tom Lane wrote:
Janardhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Does it breaks any other things if all the index entries pointing the
dead tuple are removed before reusing the dead tuple?.
Possibly you could make that work, but I think you'll find the
efficiency advantage you we
Janardhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does it breaks any other things if all the index entries pointing the
> dead tuple are removed before reusing the dead tuple?.
Possibly you could make that work, but I think you'll find the
efficiency advantage you were chasing to be totally gone. The loc
Tom Lane wrote:
Janardhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Does it breaks anythings by overwriting the dead tuples ?.
Yes. You cannot do that unless you've first removed index entries
pointing at the dead tuples --- and jumped through the same locking
hoops that lazy vacuum
Janardhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> if i am not wrong while updating a tuple, we are also creating a new
> index entry .
Yes.
> so if the
> tuple is dead then the index entry pointing it also a dead index tuple.
Yes.
> so even if dead index tuple is not
> removed then also it should no
Tom Lane wrote:
Janardhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Does it breaks anythings by overwriting the dead tuples ?.
Yes. You cannot do that unless you've first removed index entries
pointing at the dead tuples --- and jumped through the same locking
hoops that lazy vacuum
Janardhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does it breaks anythings by overwriting the dead tuples ?.
Yes. You cannot do that unless you've first removed index entries
pointing at the dead tuples --- and jumped through the same locking
hoops that lazy vacuum does while removing index entries.
