Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Proposal for background vacuum full/cluster

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal for background vacuum full/cluster
Date: 2005-04-20 23:33:54
Message-ID: 2144.1114040034@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> In a nutshell, my idea is to use the normal transactional/XID code to
> relocate tuples in the heap. Think of doing an UPDATE field=field if you
> could tell update what page to put the new tuple on. Using this
> mechanism, you can move tuples from the end of the heap to pages that
> have free space on them. The dead tuples at the end of the heap could
> then be vacuumed conventionally, and completely empty pages removed by
> that vacuum.

How exactly is this different from what happens now, assuming that you
didn't run out of FSM?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gavin SherryDate: 2005-04-20 23:34:41
Subject: Re: WAL/PITR additional items
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-04-20 23:23:06
Subject: Re: WAL/PITR additional items

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group