Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > And would the truncation occur that often in reality under
> > the scheme(without tuple movement) ?
>
> Probably not, per my comments to someone else. I'm not very concerned
> about that, as long as we are able to recycle freed space within the
> relation.
>
Agreed.
> We could in fact move tuples if we wanted to --- it's not fundamentally
> different from an UPDATE --- but then VACUUM becomes a transaction and
> we have the WAL-log-traffic problem back again.
And it has been always the cause of bugs and innefficiency
of VACUUM IMHO.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
