Simon Riggs wrote: > On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 16:07 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> The assumption that b-tree vacuum records don't need conflict >> resolution because we did that with the additional cleanup-info record >> works ATM, but it hinges on the fact that we don't delete any tuples >> marked as killed while we do the vacuum. > >> That seems like a low-hanging >> fruit that I'd actually like to do now that I spotted it, but will >> then need to fix b-tree vacuum records accordingly. We'd probably need >> to do something about the previous item first to keep performance >> acceptable. > > We can optimise that by using the xlog pointer of the HeapInfo record. > Any blocks cleaned that haven't been further updated can avoid > generating further btree deletion records.
Sorry, I don't understand that. (Remember that marking index tuples as killed is not WAL-logged.) > You spotted this issue only this morning?? Yesterday evening. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
