Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 10:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In the fourth, if we actually believed this was a problem we'd
>> need to redesign VACUUM too, as it does the same thing.
> VACUUM waits until nobody else has the buffer pinned, so lock contention
> is much less of a consideration there. Plus it rearranges the block,
> which is hard to do one tuple at a time even if we wanted to.
That's the second scan. The first scan acts exactly like Pavan is
proposing for ANALYZE.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Mathias Hasselmann||Date: 2008-04-01 15:07:31|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Avahi support for Postgresql|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-04-01 14:52:41|
|Subject: Re: Scroll cursor oddity... |
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Pettis, Barry||Date: 2008-04-01 15:12:54|
|Subject: Re: Using tables in other PostGreSQL database|
|Previous:||From: Ivan Sergio Borgonovo||Date: 2008-04-01 14:54:12|
|Subject: optimiser STABLE vs. temp table was: HOWTO caching data across
function calls: temporary tables, cursor?|