Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> How often does that case come up in the real world, for tables that are >> large enough that you'd care about vacuum performance?
> I would have had the same objection if it resulted in substantially more > complex code but it was so simple that it doesn't seem like a concern. The reason the patch is so short is that it's a kluge. If we really cared about supporting this case, more wide-ranging changes would be needed (eg, there's no need to eat maintenance_work_mem worth of RAM for the dead-TIDs array); and a decent respect to the opinions of mankind would require some attention to updating the header comments and function descriptions, too. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster