From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
Date: | 2001-05-18 07:03:36 |
Message-ID: | 3B04C948.4A98D77C@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > And would the truncation occur that often in reality under
> > the scheme(without tuple movement) ?
>
> Probably not, per my comments to someone else. I'm not very concerned
> about that, as long as we are able to recycle freed space within the
> relation.
>
Agreed.
> We could in fact move tuples if we wanted to --- it's not fundamentally
> different from an UPDATE --- but then VACUUM becomes a transaction and
> we have the WAL-log-traffic problem back again.
And it has been always the cause of bugs and innefficiency
of VACUUM IMHO.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-18 07:07:42 | Re: possible DOMAIN implementation |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-18 06:58:49 | Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |