On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 9:44 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But let me think about it...I suppose we could do it when one-pass
> > VACUUM considers vacuuming a range of FSM pages every
> > VACUUM_FSM_EVERY_PAGES. That's kind of similar to index vacuuming, in
> > a way -- it wouldn't be too bad to check for emergencies in the same
> > way there.
>
> Yeah, I also thought that would be a good place to check for
> emergencies. That sounds reasonable.
Without offering an opinion on this particular implementation choice,
+1 for the idea of trying to make the table-with-indexes and the
table-without-indexes cases work in ways that will feel similar to the
user. Tables without indexes are probably rare in practice, but if
some behaviors are implemented for one case and not the other, it will
probably be confusing. One thought here is that it might help to try
to write documentation for whatever behavior you choose. If it's hard
to document without weasel-words, maybe it's not the best approach.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
