Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> How often does that case come up in the real world, for tables that are
>> large enough that you'd care about vacuum performance?
> I would have had the same objection if it resulted in substantially more
> complex code but it was so simple that it doesn't seem like a concern.
The reason the patch is so short is that it's a kluge. If we really
cared about supporting this case, more wide-ranging changes would be
needed (eg, there's no need to eat maintenance_work_mem worth of RAM
for the dead-TIDs array); and a decent respect to the opinions of
mankind would require some attention to updating the header comments
and function descriptions, too.
regards, tom lane
