Re: vacuum -vs reltuples on insert only index - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: vacuum -vs reltuples on insert only index
Date
Msg-id CAH2-WzmJ3MGJHeW+pNgNbpEcY_cv0+RyYhfu=LHAX=Y+fCxDCQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: vacuum -vs reltuples on insert only index  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
List pgsql-hackers
Just one more postscript...

On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 12:06 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> Just to be clear: I am not proposing that we set
> 'IndexBulkDeleteResult.estimated_count = false' here

I meant 'IndexBulkDeleteResult.estimated_count = true'. So my patch
doesn't touch that field at all.

> In other words, I think that the remaining posting-list related
> inaccuracies are comparable to the existing inaccuracies caused by
> concurrent page splits during nbtree vacuuming (I describe the problem
> right next to an old comment about that issue, in fact).

I meant the inaccuracies that remain *once my patch is committed*.
(Clearly the current behavior of setting pg_class.reltuples to zero
during cleanup-only vacuuming is a bug.)

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: vacuum -vs reltuples on insert only index
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: Collation versioning