On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 11:00 +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > VACUUM's current behaviour is to take blocks it has touched and place
> > > > them on the head of the freelist, allowing them to be reused.
> > >
> > > No, it puts them at the tail of t
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > VACUUM's current behaviour is to take blocks it has touched and place
> > > them on the head of the freelist, allowing them to be reused.
> >
> > No, it puts them at the tail of the freelist.
>
> That's a minor point because the freelist is mostly
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 11:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > VACUUM's current behaviour is to take blocks it has touched and place
> > them on the head of the freelist, allowing them to be reused.
>
> No, it puts them at the tail of the freelist.
That's a min
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> VACUUM's current behaviour is to take blocks it has touched and place
> them on the head of the freelist, allowing them to be reused.
No, it puts them at the tail of the freelist. So I am unconvinced by
the rest of your argument.
