Ühel kenal päeval, E, 2006-02-27 kell 13:17, kirjutas Tom Lane: > Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Vacuum will need to be modified to use index lookups to find index tuples > > corresponding the dead heap tuples. Otherwise you have to scan through > > all the indexes anyway. > > This strikes me as a fairly bad idea, because it makes VACUUM dependent > on correct functioning of user-written code --- consider a functional > index involving a user-written function that was claimed to be immutable > and is not. There are concurrency-safety issues too, I think, having to > do with the way that btree ensures we don't delete any index tuple that > some scan is stopped on. > > > * vacuuming pages one by one as they're written by bgwriter > > That's not happening. VACUUM has to be a transaction
WHY does vacuum need to be a tranasction ? I thought it was a programmer workload optimisation (aka. lazyness :) ) to require ordinary lazy vacuum to be in transaction. There is no fundamental reason, why vacuum needs to run in a transaction itselt. ----------------- Hannu ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
