On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Pavan Deolasee
<pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> The only problem, other than a surprising behavior that you noted,
> that I see with this approach is that we might repeatedly try to
> truncate a relation which in fact does not have anything to truncate.
> The worst  thing is we might unnecessarily take an exclusive lock on
> the table.
>

So it seems we tried to fix this issue sometime back
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg01994.php

But I don't quite understand how the fix would really work.
nonempty_pages would most likely be set at a value lower than relpages
if the last page in the relation is all-visible according to the
visibility map. Did we mean to test (nonempty_pages > 0) there ? But
even that may not work except for the case when there are no dead
tuples in the relation.

Thanks,
Pavan

-- 
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB     http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

• Re: [GENERAL] Odd VACUUM behavior when it is expected to truncate last empty pages at 2011-08-03 16:33:49 from Pavan Deolasee

Responses

• Re: [GENERAL] Odd VACUUM behavior when it is expected to truncate last empty pages at 2011-08-05 03:54:21 from Sergey Konoplev

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: James Robinson	Date: 2011-08-03 21:19:15
	Subject: Postgres / plpgsql equivalent to python's getattr() ?
Previous:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2011-08-03 21:04:56
	Subject: Re: mosbench revisited

pgsql-general by date

Next:	From: Earth Analizer	Date: 2011-08-04 05:03:48
	Subject: How to get last Error Message/Code
Previous:	From: Terry Lee Tucker	Date: 2011-08-03 20:29:50
	Subject: Re: running out of oids