On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> > How hard would it be to add a "WITH (VACUUM)" option to UPDATE and DELETE
> > queries? This option would cause the regular vacuum activity -- purging the
> > dead tuple and its index references -- to be done immediately, as part of the
> > statement, instead of being deferred.
>
> > Easy? Hard? Insane? What do you think?
>
> Impossible. You can't vacuum a tuple until the last open transaction
> that can see it is gone. It is therefore *impossible* for a transaction
> to vacuum away its own detritus; until the transaction commits, you
> can't even start to wonder whether other open transactions see it or
> not.
>
> Vacuuming has to be done later, and that being the case, I don't see any
> real advantage to altering the "background vacuum" design we have.
Then, would a "commit with vacuum" work? OR a "begin transaction with
vacuum" Just tossing them out there...
