On Jun 3, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Nicolai Petri wrote:
On Saturday 03 June 2006 17:27, Tom Lane wrote:
PFC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip - complicated update logic proprosal]
What do you think ?
Sounds enormously complicated and of very doubtful net win --- you're
[snip - ... bad idea reasoning] :)
What if every backend while processing a transaction collected a
list of
touched records - probably with a max number of entries (GUC)
collected per
transaction. Then when transaction completes the list of touples
are sent to
pg_autovacuum or possible a new process that selectively only went
for those
tupples. Of course it should have some kind of logic connected so
we don't
visit the tupples for vacuum unless we are quite sure no running
transactions
would be blocking adding the blocks to the FSM. We might be able to
actually
queue up the blocks until a later time (GUC queue-max-time +
queue-size-limit) if we cannot determine that it would be safe to
FSM the
blocks at current time.
I guess this has probably been suggested before and there is
probably a reason
Yup. Search the archives for 'dead space map'.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
