Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I thought the consensus was to remove it if possible. There may still
>> be some "marginal" use cases, but they don't justify the work that'd
>> be needed to make it play safely with HS; let alone fixing the other
>> longstanding gotchas with it, like the double-commit risk.
> I think part of the plan was to also provide an online reorg tool that
> works by doing dummy UPDATEs, which means that you can get serialization
> errors in serializable mode, but doesn't need to lock the table.
Yeah. There's a good deal of interest in incremental/partial vacuuming.
But that wouldn't make use of the existing VFI infrastructure either.
regards, tom lane
