Tom Lane wrote:<br /><blockquote cite="mid8875.1039581335@sss.pgh.pa.us" type="cite"><pre wrap="">Janardhan <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"href="mailto:jana-reddy@mediaring.com.sg"><jana-reddy@mediaring.com.sg></a> writes:
</pre><blockquotetype="cite"><pre wrap="">Does it breaks anythings by overwriting the dead tuples ?.
</pre></blockquote><prewrap="">
Yes. You cannot do that unless you've first removed index entries
pointing at the dead tuples --- and jumped through the same locking
hoops that lazy vacuum does while removing index entries.
regards, tom lane
</pre></blockquote> if i am not wrong while updating a tuple, we are also creating a new index entry . so if the<br
/>tuple is dead then the index entry pointing it also a dead index tuple. so even if dead index tuple is not <br />
removedthen also it should not break thing, since the dead index tuple will not be used, am i correct?.<br /><br />
whatis reason why the dead heap tuples are maintained in a linked list ?. since for every dead heap tuple there<br />
isa corresponding dead index tuple.<br /><br /> Regards<br /> jana<br />
