Tom Lane wrote:
Janardhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Does it breaks any other things if all the index entries pointing the
dead tuple are removed before reusing the dead tuple?.
Possibly you could make that work, but I think you'll find the
efficiency advantage you we
Janardhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does it breaks any other things if all the index entries pointing the
> dead tuple are removed before reusing the dead tuple?.
Possibly you could make that work, but I think you'll find the
efficiency advantage you were chasing to be totally gone. The loc
Tom Lane wrote:
Janardhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Does it breaks anythings by overwriting the dead tuples ?.
Yes. You cannot do that unless you've first removed index entries
pointing at the dead tuples --- and jumped through the same locking
hoops that lazy vacuum
Janardhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> if i am not wrong while updating a tuple, we are also creating a new
> index entry .
Yes.
> so if the
> tuple is dead then the index entry pointing it also a dead index tuple.
Yes.
> so even if dead index tuple is not
> removed then also it should no
Tom Lane wrote:
Janardhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Does it breaks anythings by overwriting the dead tuples ?.
Yes. You cannot do that unless you've first removed index entries
pointing at the dead tuples --- and jumped through the same locking
hoops that lazy vacuum
Janardhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does it breaks anythings by overwriting the dead tuples ?.
Yes. You cannot do that unless you've first removed index entries
pointing at the dead tuples --- and jumped through the same locking
hoops that lazy vacuum does while removing index entries.
Hi,
I am doing some experiments on dead tuples, I am looking of reusing the
dead tuples apace in a particular page during the "Update".This patch
is meant for the tables
which are heavily updated to avoid vacuum very frequently.By using it
will arrest the size of
table for heavily updated ta
