Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> writes:
>> [snip] (In fact, it's
>> trivial to see how user-defined functions that are mislabeled immutable
>> could make this fail.) So retail vacuum without any cross-check that
>> you got all the index tuples is a scary proposition IMHO.
> Wouldn't work to restrict that kind of vacuum to only tables which have
> no indexes using user defined functions ?
Of course, we never have bugs in PG core. Nope, doesn't happen ...
> I actually wonder if such a vacuum would be useful for my scenario,
> where I have some pretty big tables, and update a relatively small
> percentage of it. Would it be faster to run such a vacuum against the
> current one ?
So far, the case hasn't been made for retail vacuum even ignoring the
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bort, Paul||Date: 2006-07-26 16:17:00|
|Subject: Re: GUC with units, details|
|Previous:||From: Bort, Paul||Date: 2006-07-26 16:01:49|
|Subject: Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2006-07-26 16:46:02|
|Subject: Re: LDAP lookup of connection parameters|
|Previous:||From: Csaba Nagy||Date: 2006-07-26 15:49:25|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Resurrecting per-page cleaner for btree|