On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 13:39 +0000, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > ISTM we could fix that by extending the index VACUUM interface to > > include two concepts: aside from "remove these TIDs when you find them", > > there could be "replace these TIDs with those TIDs when you find them". > > This would allow pointer-swinging to one of the child tuples, after > > which the old root could be removed. > > Implementing the "replace these TIDs" operation atomically would be > simple, except for the new bitmap index am. It should be possible there > as well, but if the old and new tid happen to be on a different bitmap > page, it requires some care to avoid deadlocks.
Grouped Item Indexes cope with this easily also, yes? -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
