Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How often does that case come up in the real world, for tables that are
>> large enough that you'd care about vacuum performance?

> I would have had the same objection if it resulted in substantially more
> complex code but it was so simple that it doesn't seem like a concern.

The reason the patch is so short is that it's a kluge.  If we really
cared about supporting this case, more wide-ranging changes would be
needed (eg, there's no need to eat maintenance_work_mem worth of RAM
for the dead-TIDs array); and a decent respect to the opinions of
mankind would require some attention to updating the header comments
and function descriptions, too.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to