Re: [HACKERS] Indirect indexes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Indirect indexes
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoapZZzW3WA=bBMSP1uovhdjn6hjWey536gwx_g=trOQyQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Also, vacuuming: my answer continues to be that the killtuple
> interface should be good enough, ...

How deeply do you believe in that answer?  I mean, I grant you that
there are many use cases for which that will work fine, but
continuously-advancing keyspace is an example of a use case where the
index will grow without bound unless you REINDEX periodically, and
that sucks.  It's not clear to me that it's 100% unacceptable to
commit the feature with no other provision to remove dead tuples, but
if you do, I think it's likely to be a fairly major operational
problem for people who actually try to use this in production.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_activity.waiting_start
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Performance degradation in Bitmapscan (commit 75ae538bc3168bf44475240d4e0487ee2f3bb376)