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

Re: [HACKERS] Resurrecting per-page cleaner for btree

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>
Cc: postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, teramoto(dot)junji(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Resurrecting per-page cleaner for btree
Date: 2006-07-26 16:09:04
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> writes:
>> [snip] (In fact, it's
>> trivial to see how user-defined functions that are mislabeled immutable
>> could make this fail.)  So retail vacuum without any cross-check that
>> you got all the index tuples is a scary proposition IMHO.

> Wouldn't work to restrict that kind of vacuum to only tables which have
> no indexes using user defined functions ?

Of course, we never have bugs in PG core.  Nope, doesn't happen ...

> I actually wonder if such a vacuum would be useful for my scenario,
> where I have some pretty big tables, and update a relatively small
> percentage of it. Would it be faster to run such a vacuum against the
> current one ?

So far, the case hasn't been made for retail vacuum even ignoring the
not-so-immutable-function risk.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bort, PaulDate: 2006-07-26 16:17:00
Subject: Re: GUC with units, details
Previous:From: Bort, PaulDate: 2006-07-26 16:01:49
Subject: Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-07-26 16:46:02
Subject: Re: LDAP lookup of connection parameters
Previous:From: Csaba NagyDate: 2006-07-26 15:49:25
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Resurrecting per-page cleaner for btree

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group