From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Minimally avoiding Transaction Wraparound in VLDBs |
Date: | 2005-09-22 05:52:21 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0509221550570.24326@linuxworld.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW ... the original Berkeley papers on Postgres make frequent reference
> to a "vacuum daemon", which seems to be essentially what we're trying to
> build with autovacuum. Does anyone know if the Berkeley implementation
> ever actually had auto vacuuming, or was that all handwaving? If it did
> exist, why was it removed?
Well, I was just poking around the executor and noticed this in
ExecDelete():
/*
* Note: Normally one would think that we have to delete index tuples
* associated with the heap tuple now..
*
* ... but in POSTGRES, we have no need to do this because the vacuum
* daemon automatically opens an index scan and deletes index tuples
* when it finds deleted heap tuples. -cim 9/27/89
*/
So, it seems they must have actually written the vacuum daemon.
Gavin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2005-09-22 06:55:41 | Re: Minimally avoiding Transaction Wraparound in VLDBs |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2005-09-22 05:41:19 | Re: feature proposal ... |