On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 11:57 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 14:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Here's an update of the patch. I reverted the behavior at end of scan > > > back to the way it was in Jeff's original patch, and disabled reporting > > > the position when moving backwards. > > > > Applied with minor editorializations --- notably, I got rid of the > > HeapScanDesc dependency in syncscan.c's API, so that it could be used > > in other contexts (VACUUM, anyone?). There were a few glitches in the > > heapam.c code too. > > I think VACUUM would be an ideal place for it. I assume we don't want to
I have a few thoughts: * For a large table, do lazy_scan_heap, scan_heap, and a sequential scan usually progress at approximately the same rate? * Are there any other parts of the vacuum process that may benefit? * Just adding in the syncscan to scan_heap and lazy_scan_heap seems very easy at first thought. Are there any complications that I'm missing? Regards, Jeff Davis ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend