From: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Vivek Khera <khera(at)kcilink(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Decent VACUUM (was: Buglist) |
Date: | 2003-08-21 21:33:10 |
Message-ID: | r4eakv03lngq465gsvipehduvcuiae6dh5@4ax.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
[ still brainstorming ... ]
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:16:50 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
wrote:
>> Whenever a backend encounters a dead tuple it inserts a reference to
>> its page into the RSM.
>
>This assumes that backends will visit dead tuples with significant
>probability. I doubt that assumption is tenable;
Good point. What about: Whenever a backend *deletes* a tuple it
inserts a reference to its page into the RSM? Then an entry in the
RSM doesn't necessarily mean that the referenced page has reclaimable
space, but it would still be valueable information.
Servus
Manfred
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ian Barwick | 2003-08-21 21:40:49 | Re: Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" bullet list |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-21 21:16:50 | Re: Decent VACUUM (was: Buglist) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ian Barwick | 2003-08-21 21:40:49 | Re: Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" bullet list |
Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2003-08-21 21:29:54 | Re: postgresql 7.3.2 bug on date '1901-12-13' and '1901-12 |