From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Indirect indexes |
Date: | 2017-01-06 16:00:09 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoapZZzW3WA=bBMSP1uovhdjn6hjWey536gwx_g=trOQyQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Also, vacuuming: my answer continues to be that the killtuple
> interface should be good enough, ...
How deeply do you believe in that answer? I mean, I grant you that
there are many use cases for which that will work fine, but
continuously-advancing keyspace is an example of a use case where the
index will grow without bound unless you REINDEX periodically, and
that sucks. It's not clear to me that it's 100% unacceptable to
commit the feature with no other provision to remove dead tuples, but
if you do, I think it's likely to be a fairly major operational
problem for people who actually try to use this in production.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-01-06 16:01:32 | Re: Performance degradation in Bitmapscan (commit 75ae538bc3168bf44475240d4e0487ee2f3bb376) |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-01-06 15:54:12 | Re: pg_stat_activity.waiting_start |