On 08.12.2018 6:58, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I have no idea what you mean here. I'm proposing a patch that stops
it being a game of chance, while preserving the existing
slightly-random behavior to the greatest extent possible. I think that
my patch would have stopped that problem altogether. Are you
suggesting that it wouldn't have?
I did many tests of your solution inside the 'quick vacuum' strategy [1]
and the background worker called 'heap cleaner' [2]. I must admit that
when I use your patch, there is no problem with dependencies.
This patch needs opinion of an another reviewer.
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/425db134-8bba-005c-b59d-56e50de3b41e%40postgrespro.ru
[2]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/f49bb262-d246-829d-f835-3950ddac503c%40postgrespro.ru
--
Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional
https://postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
