Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I'm not sure that we have any use for the top level you propose; the
attached patch just uses the two lower levels, and I think it fits
autovacuum usage just fine. Thanks for the idea.
Of course, there's no need to pass the relkind; it goes
Hi,
So I've been progressing on revising the autovacuum patch to make it
work with the current reloptions. We have a number of options:
1. Call heap_open() for every relation that we're going to check, and
examine the reloptions via the relcache.
I'm not sure that I like this very much.
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
So I've been progressing on revising the autovacuum patch to make it
work with the current reloptions. We have a number of options:
1. Call heap_open() for every relation that we're going to check, and
examine the reloptions via the
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Right now we just plow
ahead using a pg_class seqscan, which avoids locking the relations
just for the sake of verifying whether they need work.
We should stick with that, and refactor the reloptions code as
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I'm not sure that we have any use for the top level you propose; the
attached patch just uses the two lower levels, and I think it fits
autovacuum usage just fine. Thanks for the idea.
Of course, there's no need to pass the relkind; it goes inside the
pg_class tuple.
