Re: should vacuum's first heap pass be read-only?

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: should vacuum's first heap pass be read-only?
Date: 2022-02-07 18:55:21
Message-ID: CAH2-WznoOL3jNoddubduuQrxNH3=-nDq3m9u-d-vxpVPRYBi2w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Yes, that's what I meant. That's always how I thought that it would work,
for over a year now. I might have jumped to the conclusion that that's what
you had in mind all along. Oops.

Although this design is simpler, which is an advantage, that's not really
the point. The point is that it makes sense, and that extra concurrent
with pruning heap vacuuming doesn't seem useful at all.
--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-02-07 19:00:25 Re: Refactoring the regression tests for more independence
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2022-02-07 18:49:47 Re: postgres_fdw: commit remote (sub)transactions in parallel during pre-commit