Re: should vacuum's first heap pass be read-only? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: should vacuum's first heap pass be read-only?
Date
Msg-id CAH2-WznoOL3jNoddubduuQrxNH3=-nDq3m9u-d-vxpVPRYBi2w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: should vacuum's first heap pass be read-only?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Yes, that's what I meant. That's always how I thought that it would work, for over a year now. I might have jumped to the conclusion that that's what you had in mind all along. Oops.

Although this design is simpler, which is an advantage, that's not really the point. The  point is that it makes sense, and that extra concurrent with pruning heap vacuuming doesn't seem useful at all.
--
Peter Geoghegan

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw: commit remote (sub)transactions in parallel during pre-commit
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Refactoring the regression tests for more independence