Re: Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree

From: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
To: amborodin(at)acm(dot)org
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree
Date: 2017-03-23 16:39:41
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thank you, pushed

Andrew Borodin wrote:
> 2017-03-22 22:48 GMT+05:00 Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>:
>> hasEmptyChild? and hasNonEmptyChild (BTW, isAnyNonempy has missed 't')
> Yes, I think this naming is good. It's clear what's in common in these
> flags and what's different.
>> And if the whole posting tree is empty,then we could mark root page as leaf
>> and remove all other pages in tree without any locking. Although, it could
>> be a task for separate patch.
> From the performance point of view, this is a very good idea. Both,
> performance of VACUUM and performance of Scans. But doing so we risk
> to leave some garbage pages in case of a crash. And I do not see how
> to avoid these without unlinking pages one by one. I agree, that
> leaving this trick for a separate patch is quite reasonable.
> Best regards, Andrey Borodin.

Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Teodor Sigaev 2017-03-23 16:45:37 Re: Backend crash on non-exclusive backup cancel
Previous Message Mat Arye 2017-03-23 16:33:46 Order-preserving function transforms and EquivalenceClass