Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Suggestion; "WITH VACUUM" option

From: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Suggestion; "WITH VACUUM" option
Date: 2002-12-16 22:52:30
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.33.0212161551350.24032-100000@css120.ihs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> > How hard would it be to add a "WITH (VACUUM)" option to UPDATE and DELETE 
> > queries?   This option would cause the regular vacuum activity -- purging the
> > dead tuple and its index references -- to be done immediately, as part of the
> > statement, instead of being deferred.
> 
> > Easy?  Hard?  Insane?  What do you think?
> 
> Impossible.  You can't vacuum a tuple until the last open transaction
> that can see it is gone.  It is therefore *impossible* for a transaction
> to vacuum away its own detritus; until the transaction commits, you
> can't even start to wonder whether other open transactions see it or
> not.
> 
> Vacuuming has to be done later, and that being the case, I don't see any
> real advantage to altering the "background vacuum" design we have.

Then, would a "commit with vacuum" work?  OR a "begin transaction with 
vacuum"  Just tossing them out there...


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-12-16 23:07:05
Subject: Re: FW: Duplicate oids!
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-12-16 22:33:14
Subject: Re: Suggestion; "WITH VACUUM" option

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group