On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 09:14 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 16:21 +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> > With the default
> > value of scan_recycle_buffers(=0), VACUUM seems to use all of buffers in pool,
> > just like existing sequential scans. Is this intended?
>
> Yes, but its not very useful for testing to have done that. I'll do
> another version within the hour that sets N=0 (only) back to current
> behaviour for VACUUM.
New test version enclosed, where scan_recycle_buffers = 0 doesn't change
existing VACUUM behaviour.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com