Re: [PATCHES] Resurrecting per-page cleaner for btree

Csaba Nagy <nagy@ecircle-ag.com> writes:
>> [snip] (In fact, it's
>> trivial to see how user-defined functions that are mislabeled immutable
>> could make this fail.)  So retail vacuum without any cross-check that
>> you got all the index tuples is a scary proposition IMHO.

> Wouldn't work to restrict that kind of vacuum to only tables which have
> no indexes using user defined functions ?

Of course, we never have bugs in PG core.  Nope, doesn't happen ...

> I actually wonder if such a vacuum would be useful for my scenario,
> where I have some pretty big tables, and update a relatively small
> percentage of it. Would it be faster to run such a vacuum against the
> current one ?

So far, the case hasn't been made for retail vacuum even ignoring the
not-so-immutable-function risk.

            regards, tom lane