Message-ID: <48861758.4070507@sigaev.ru>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:22:32 +0400
From: Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US;
	rv:1.8.1.15) Gecko/20080715 SeaMonkey/1.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>,
	Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements
References: <483FD205.4090904@sigaev.ru> <486BC501.6060605@sigaev.ru>
	<27880.1215810535@sss.pgh.pa.us> <487A6E0C.3090600@sigaev.ru>
	<29437.1216742605@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <29437.1216742605@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> I started to look at this.  I don't understand why VACUUM does an insert
> cleanup before starting to vacuum, but VACUUM FULL doesn't?

Hmm. May be I missed something, but I don't understand where and what... I tried 
to track all places of ambultdelete call. aminsertcleanup should be called 
before any ambulkdelete, because ambulkdelete doesn't scan pending list which 
can store items to be deleted and hence index will store item pointers to absent 
tuples.

> needed is the one at vacuum startup, which tempts me to propose that
> the new AM entry point should be called "amvacuumstartup", instead of
> wiring in the assumption that what it's for is specifically cleanup
> of insertions.

That's possible but inserts into index should be forbidden between 
amvacuumstartup and last call of ambulkdelete.


> 
> Comments?  I can make the change if you think it's okay --- I'm busy
> cleaning up docs and comments at the moment.


-- 
Teodor Sigaev                                   E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru
                                                    WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/