On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 21:51:14 -0400,
Vivek Khera <khera(at)kcilink(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I'm not promoting any change in the MVCC. What I'm saying is that it
> would be really cool if the backend process itself could recognize
> that a row is no longer referenced by any transactions upon
> termination of the transaction, and release it back to the system.
> This is just what vacuum does but in a batched manner. I would love
> to see it incremental. This would result in pretty much near zero
> internal fragmentation, I think.
Why do you care about about the details of the implementation (rather than
the performance)? If it were faster to do it that way, that's how it would
have been done in the first place. The cost of doing the above is almost
certainly going to be an overall performance loser.