|From:||Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>|
|Subject:||Re: Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
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
|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|