Re: WIP patch for system-catalog vacuuming via a relation map

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I thought the consensus was to remove it if possible. There may still
>> be some "marginal" use cases, but they don't justify the work that'd
>> be needed to make it play safely with HS; let alone fixing the other
>> longstanding gotchas with it, like the double-commit risk.

> I think part of the plan was to also provide an online reorg tool that
> works by doing dummy UPDATEs, which means that you can get serialization
> errors in serializable mode, but doesn't need to lock the table.

Yeah. There's a good deal of interest in incremental/partial vacuuming.
But that wouldn't make use of the existing VFI infrastructure either.

regards, tom lane