On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Attached is the remainder of the patch with relatively minor fixes. > The main change I made is to get rid of the changes in gincostestimate; > I agree with Robert that it's probably inappropriate to consider the > current pending-list size during planning. I haven't really reviewed > any of the rest of it; this is just to have a clean patch against HEAD.
The changes to config.sgml are not good English and contain typographical errors. It could also be a bit more informatiave, maybe something like: This parameter also specifies the number of insert or updated tuples needed to trigger <command>VACUUM</> on a <acronym>GIN</acronym> index. <acronym>GIN</acronym> indexes require <command>VACUUM</> after insert or update operations because newly inserted tuples are initially stored in an unsorted pending list. I still think removing index scans entirely is short-sighted - but I may be outvoted (then again, no one other than Tom has really expressed an opinion one way or the other, and I initially agreed with him until I thought about the performance aspects some more). ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
