"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes: > I'm not sure what you are saying here, are you now saying that partial > vacuum won't work for autovac? Or are you saying that saving state as > Jim is describing above won't work?
I'm saying that I don't like the idea of trying to "stop on a dime" by saving the current contents of vacuum's dead-TID array to disk with the idea that we can trust those values 100% later. Saving the array is expensive both in runtime and code complexity, and I don't believe we can trust it later --- at least not without even more expensive-and- complex measures, such as WAL-logging every such save :-( I'm for stopping only after completing an index-cleaning pass, at the point where we empty the dead-TID array anyway. If you really have to have "stop on a dime", just kill -INT the process, accepting that you will have to redo your heap scan since the last restart point. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(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