Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Teodor Sigaev
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree
Дата
Msg-id f288a763-454e-297f-a60f-19b7259b7c96@sigaev.ru
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree  (Andrew Borodin <borodin@octonica.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree  (Andrew Borodin <borodin@octonica.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
> No, second conditional code will be called for any subtree, which
> contains totally empty subtree. That check !isRoot covers case when
> the entire posting tree should be erased: we cannot just quit out of
> recursive cleanup, we have to make a scan here, starting from root.
Oh, I see

> Probably, variable isChildHasVoid has a bit confusing name. This flag
> indicates that some subtree:
> 1. Had empty pages
> 2. Did not bother deleting them, because there is a chance that it is
> a part of a bigger empty subtree.
> May be it'd be better to call the variable "someChildIsVoidSubtree".

hasEmptyChild? and hasNonEmptyChild (BTW, isAnyNonempy has missed 't')

And if the whole posting tree is empty,then we could mark root page as leaf and 
remove all other pages in tree without any locking. Although, it could be a task 
for separate patch.


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



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix and simplify check forwhether we're running as Windows serv
Следующее
От: Stephen Frost
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size