On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 13:39 +0000, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > ISTM we could fix that by extending the index VACUUM interface to
> > include two concepts: aside from "remove these TIDs when you find them",
> > there could be "replace these TIDs with those TIDs when you find them".
> > This would allow pointer-swinging to one of the child tuples, after
> > which the old root could be removed.
>
> Implementing the "replace these TIDs" operation atomically would be
> simple, except for the new bitmap index am. It should be possible there
> as well, but if the old and new tid happen to be on a different bitmap
> page, it requires some care to avoid deadlocks.
Grouped Item Indexes cope with this easily also, yes?
-- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
