Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It will certainly not "solve" the problem. What it will do is mean that
>> the breaks are further apart and longer, which seems to me to make the
>> conflict with syncscan behavior worse not better.
> How would it make them longer? They still have the
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The objections to synchronized scans for VACUUM as listed in that thread
>> (summary):
>
>> 2. vacuum takes breaks from the scan to clean up the indexes when it
>> runs out of maintenance_work_mem.
>
>> 2. There hav
Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The objections to synchronized scans for VACUUM as listed in that thread
> (summary):
> 2. vacuum takes breaks from the scan to clean up the indexes when it
> runs out of maintenance_work_mem.
> 2. There have been suggestions about a more compact represent
