From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Page at a time index scan |
Date: | 2006-05-02 19:02:59 |
Message-ID: | Pine.OSF.4.61.0605022150090.463955@kosh.hut.fi |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Tue, 2 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
> Also, as noted in other contexts, it'd be a good idea if vacuumcleanup
> was told the total number of heap tuples (GIN needs this), and both
> steps really ought to be able to find out if it's a full or lazy vacuum.
It's already in IndexVacuumCleanupInfo, isn't it?
/* Struct for additional arguments passed to vacuum-cleanup operation */
typedef struct IndexVacuumCleanupInfo
{
bool vacuum_full; /* VACUUM FULL (we have exclusive lock) */
int message_level; /* ereport level for progress messages */
--> double num_heap_tuples; /* tuples remaining in heap */
} IndexVacuumCleanupInfo;
gistvacuumcleanup uses num_heap_tuples to set num_index_tuples
when it doesn't need to scan the index otherwise.
BTW: Is it possible to have a partial gist index? If it is,
num_index_tuples = num_heap_tuples isn't right.
- Heikki
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-05-02 19:19:22 | Re: patch review, please: Autovacuum/Vacuum times via stats. |
Previous Message | Larry Rosenman | 2006-05-02 18:42:54 | Re: [HACKERS] patch review, please: Autovacuum/Vacuum times via stats. |