Alvaro Herrera wrote: > You missed putting back the BUG comment that used to be there about > this. >
This was deliberate, I did mention the condition in the comment at the beginning of the file. This actually makes it a feature :) Seriously though, do you think that this is still a problem? Given the rare occurrence of the revacuum and the fact that it is made cheap by visibility map? In my initial testing, I couldn't reproduce the revacuum. But I'll keep at it. > In other words I think this is a bad idea, because there is a very wide > window for a table to be vacuumed twice. Since naptime can be > arbitrarily large, this is an arbitrarily large bug. I'm sure there are > other ways to fix this, but please propose those before this patch. > I was wondering that maybe the stats subsystem shouldn't be used for vacuum tracking at all. It maybe convenient to use, but has several deficiencies (pobig file, lossy, no crash safety, etc). Could we move vacuum tracking to pg_class instead? regards, Martin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
