Bulkdelete and Vacuum operations on custom index - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Carsten Kropf
Subject Bulkdelete and Vacuum operations on custom index
Date
Msg-id 69DEC1B6-C59B-4B84-A1C8-139D174EA177@fh-hof.de
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Bulkdelete and Vacuum operations on custom index
List pgsql-general
Hi all,
I am currently implementing some index access methods on top of PostgreSQL. Until now, it is pretty fine and working
properly.However, I am now doing the implementation of bulk deletion and vacuum of the structure. I don't know exactly,
howto achieve this because it would be much easier to just collect statistics in bulkdelete and to implement the "real
deal"of deleting the particular entries from my structures when vacuum is called on the index. Is it legitimate to do
this:just collect statistics and pass the statistics and items to be deleted in main memory back to the caller and
performthe real deletion of entries in vacuum? It would be much easier for me, if I would do this, because of the
generalstructure I have here. 
As far as I understand the documentation, vacuum is called when bulkdelete does return some statistics that some
entrieshave been removed. If I would now put some additional information (namely the tuples) that have been deleted to
thestatistics and pass all of these data to vacuum (like in GiST whereas GiST only sets up a boolean flag) and then
woulddelete the whole collected entries (stored somewhere in main memory), would this be still OK? 
Actually I don't know exactly, if this could be done properly, but it would help me much because if I would use a
standardapproach of deleting in bulk delete and reorganizing in vacuum, I would get into some trouble probably and
wouldhave to rethink my whole algorithms (which I was testing in main memory in some outstanding project, before). 
Thanks in advance.

Best regards
    Carsten Kropf

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: stopping processes, preventing connections
Next
From: Herouth Maoz
Date:
Subject: Re: stopping processes, preventing connections