Re: Poorly thought out code in vacuum

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I suppose Robert had something more intelligent in mind than a tight
>> loop when the buffer can't be exclusively locked, so maybe there is
>> some other change that should be made here instead.
>
> My intention was to skip the tuple, but I failed to notice the unusual
> way in which this loop iterates.  How about something like the
> attached?

It solves the waiting issue, but leaves unused tuples in the heap that
previously would have been removed.

I don't think that is a solution.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services