On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 11:00 +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
VACUUM's current behaviour is to take blocks it has touched and place
them on the head of the freelist, allowing them to be reused.
No, it puts them at the tail of the freelist.
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
VACUUM's current behaviour is to take blocks it has touched and place
them on the head of the freelist, allowing them to be reused.
No, it puts them at the tail of the freelist. So I am unconvinced by
the rest of your argument.
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 11:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
VACUUM's current behaviour is to take blocks it has touched and place
them on the head of the freelist, allowing them to be reused.
No, it puts them at the tail of the freelist.
That's a minor point
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
VACUUM's current behaviour is to take blocks it has touched and place
them on the head of the freelist, allowing them to be reused.
No, it puts them at the tail of the freelist.
That's a minor point because the freelist is mostly empty, so head
