Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
Cc: Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements
Date: 2008-07-22 16:03:25
Message-ID: 29437.1216742605@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> writes:
> Updated: http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/fast_insert_gin-0.9.gz
> I still havn't clearness of acceptability for suggested aminsertcleanup calling.

I started to look at this. I don't understand why VACUUM does an insert
cleanup before starting to vacuum, but VACUUM FULL doesn't?

I don't particularly like the idea of adding aminsertcleanup calls
immediately before other AM operations such as ambulkdelete. It seems
to me that those operations ought to include the cleanup subroutine
themselves, if they need it; they shouldn't depend on callers to get
this right. Offhand it looks to me like the only new index AM call
needed is the one at vacuum startup, which tempts me to propose that
the new AM entry point should be called "amvacuumstartup", instead of
wiring in the assumption that what it's for is specifically cleanup
of insertions.

Comments? I can make the change if you think it's okay --- I'm busy
cleaning up docs and comments at the moment.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Markus Wanner 2008-07-22 16:08:44 Re: Postgres-R: primary key patches
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2008-07-22 15:58:20 Re: Schema-qualified statements in pg_dump output

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Teodor Sigaev 2008-07-22 17:22:32 Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2008-07-22 12:44:33 Re: [HACKERS] Hint Bits and Write I/O