ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I'm reading the code correctly, DSM makes no attempt to keep the
chunks ordered by block number. If that's the case, vacuum needs to be
modified because it currently relies on the fact that blocks are scanned
and the dead
Hiroki Kataoka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > But does it
> > work for tables that have a small hot part that's updated very
> > frequently?
>
> I think there is no problem. Bloating will make pages including the
> unnecessary area which will not be accessed. Soo
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We discussed it a long time ago already, but I really wished the DSM
> wouldn't need a fixed size shared memory area. It's one more thing the
> DBA needs to tune manually. It also means we need to have an algorithm
> for deciding what to keep in t
