On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 6:12 PM Melanie Plageman <melanieplage...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 5:28 PM Melanie Plageman > <melanieplage...@gmail.com> wrote: > > When there are no indexes on the relation, we can set would-be dead > > items LP_UNUSED and remove them during pruning. This saves us a vacuum > > WAL record, reducing WAL volume (and time spent writing and syncing > > WAL). > ... > > Note that (on principle) this patch set is on top of the bug fix I > > proposed in [1]. > > > > [1] > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAAKRu_YiL%3D44GvGnt1dpYouDSSoV7wzxVoXs8m3p311rp-TVQQ%40mail.gmail.com > > Rebased on top of fix in b2e237afddc56a and registered for the january fest > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/46/4665/
I got an off-list question about whether or not this codepath is exercised in existing regression tests. It is -- vacuum.sql tests include those which vacuum a table with no indexes and tuples that can be deleted. I also looked through [1] to see if there were any user-facing docs which happened to mention the exact implementation details of how and when tuples are deleted by vacuum. I didn't see anything like that, so I don't think there are user-facing docs which need updating. - Melanie [1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/routine-vacuuming.html
