Re: Proposal for background vacuum full/cluster

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal for background vacuum full/cluster
Date: 2005-04-20 23:33:54
Message-ID: 2144.1114040034@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> In a nutshell, my idea is to use the normal transactional/XID code to
> relocate tuples in the heap. Think of doing an UPDATE field=field if you
> could tell update what page to put the new tuple on. Using this
> mechanism, you can move tuples from the end of the heap to pages that
> have free space on them. The dead tuples at the end of the heap could
> then be vacuumed conventionally, and completely empty pages removed by
> that vacuum.

How exactly is this different from what happens now, assuming that you
didn't run out of FSM?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin Sherry 2005-04-20 23:34:41 Re: WAL/PITR additional items
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-04-20 23:23:06 Re: WAL/PITR additional items