Re: gistVacuumUpdate

On 13.01.2012 06:24, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> hi,
>
> gistVacuumUpdate was removed when old-style VACUUM FULL was removed.
> i wonder why.
> it was not practical and REINDEX is preferred?
>
> anyway, the removal seems incomplete and there are some leftovers:
>     F_TUPLES_DELETED
>     F_DELETED
>     XLOG_GIST_PAGE_DELETE

Hmm, in theory we might bring back support for deleting pages in the 
future, I'm guessing F_DELETED and the WAL record type were left in 
place because of that. Either that, or it was an oversight. It's also 
good to have the F_DELETED/F_TUPLES_DELETED around, so that new versions 
don't get confused if they see those set in GiST indexes that originate 
from an old cluster, upgraded to new version with pg_upgrade. For that 
purpose, a comment explaining what those used to be would've been 
enough, though.

--   Heikki Linnakangas  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com