Re: [HACKERS] Trivial patch to double vacuum speed on tables with no indexes

Gregory Stark wrote:
>
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> 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 the opinions of
> > mankind would require some attention to updating the header comments
> > and function descriptions, too.
>
> The only part that seems klugy to me is how it releases the lock and
> reacquires it rather than wait in the first place until it can acquire the
> lock. Fixed that and changed lazy_space_alloc to allocate only as much space
> as is really necessary.
>
> Gosh, I've never been accused of offending all mankind before.

Does that feel good or bad?

I won't comment on the spirit of the patch but I'll observe that you
should respect mankind a little more by observing brace position in
if/else ;-)

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.