Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview

Tom Lane wrote:
> Galy Lee <lee(dot)galy(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> If we can stop at any point, we can make maintenance memory large
>> sufficient to contain all of the dead tuples, then we only need to
>> clean index for once. No matter how many times vacuum stops,
>> indexes are cleaned for once.
>
> I beg your pardon? You're the one who's been harping on the
> table-so-large-it-takes-days-to-vacuum scenario. How you figure that
> you can store all the dead TIDs in working memory?

This reminds me of an idea I had while looking at the bitmap index
patch: We could store the dead TIDs more efficiently in a bitmap,
allowing tables to be vacuumed in lesser cycles.

Of course, that's orthogonal to the above discussion.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com