On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Pavan Deolasee
> 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
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.
In response to
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|