Gregory Stark wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Patch applied. Thanks.
Wait a minute. This patch changes the behavior so that
LockBufferForCleanup is applied to *every* heap page, not only the ones
where
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Patch applied. Thanks.
Wait a minute. This patch changes the behavior so that
LockBufferForCleanup is applied to *every* heap page, not only the ones
where there are removable tuples. It's not hard to imagine scenarios
where that results in severe
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Patch applied. Thanks.
Wait a minute. This patch changes the behavior so that
LockBufferForCleanup is applied to *every* heap page, not only the ones
where there are removable tuples.
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Gregory Stark wrote:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There isn't really any need for the second pass in lazy vacuum if the table
has no indexes.
How often does that case come up in the real world, for tables that are
large enough that you'd care about vacuum performance?
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There isn't really any need for the second pass in lazy vacuum if the table
has no indexes.
How often does that case come up in the real world, for tables that are
large enough that you'd care about vacuum performance?
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