On 08.12.2018 6:58, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > I have no idea what you mean here. I'm proposing a patch that stops > it being a game of chance, while preserving the existing > slightly-random behavior to the greatest extent possible. I think that > my patch would have stopped that problem altogether. Are you > suggesting that it wouldn't have? I did many tests of your solution inside the 'quick vacuum' strategy [1] and the background worker called 'heap cleaner' [2]. I must admit that when I use your patch, there is no problem with dependencies. This patch needs opinion of an another reviewer. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/425db134-8bba-005c-b59d-56e50de3b41e%40postgrespro.ru [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/f49bb262-d246-829d-f835-3950ddac503c%40postgrespro.ru -- Andrey Lepikhov Postgres Professional https://postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
pgsql-hackers by date:
Соглашаюсь с условиями обработки персональных данных
