| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
| Cc: | postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, teramoto(dot)junji(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Resurrecting per-page cleaner for btree |
| Date: | 2006-07-26 16:09:04 |
| Message-ID: | 10016.1153930144@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> writes:
>> [snip] (In fact, it's
>> trivial to see how user-defined functions that are mislabeled immutable
>> could make this fail.) So retail vacuum without any cross-check that
>> you got all the index tuples is a scary proposition IMHO.
> Wouldn't work to restrict that kind of vacuum to only tables which have
> no indexes using user defined functions ?
Of course, we never have bugs in PG core. Nope, doesn't happen ...
> I actually wonder if such a vacuum would be useful for my scenario,
> where I have some pretty big tables, and update a relatively small
> percentage of it. Would it be faster to run such a vacuum against the
> current one ?
So far, the case hasn't been made for retail vacuum even ignoring the
not-so-immutable-function risk.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bort, Paul | 2006-07-26 16:17:00 | Re: GUC with units, details |
| Previous Message | Bort, Paul | 2006-07-26 16:01:49 | Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-07-26 16:46:02 | Re: LDAP lookup of connection parameters |
| Previous Message | Csaba Nagy | 2006-07-26 15:49:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Resurrecting per-page cleaner for btree |