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

Thank you, pushed

Andrew Borodin wrote:
> 2017-03-22 22:48 GMT+05:00 Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>:
>> hasEmptyChild? and hasNonEmptyChild (BTW, isAnyNonempy has missed 't')
>
> Yes, I think this naming is good. It's clear what's in common in these
> flags and what's different.
>
>> 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.
>
> From the performance point of view, this is a very good idea. Both,
> performance of VACUUM and performance of Scans. But doing so we risk
> to leave some garbage pages in case of a crash. And I do not see how
> to avoid these without unlinking pages one by one. I agree, that
> leaving this trick for a separate patch is quite reasonable.
>
> Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
>
>

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