Re: Decent VACUUM (was: Buglist)

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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