On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 15:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> If the only benefit of getting rid of VACUUM FULL were simplifying
> Hot Standby, I'd agree with you. But there are numerous other benefits.
> The double-commit hack you mention is something we need to get rid of
> for general system stability (because of the risk of PANIC if the vacuum
> fails after the first commit). Getting rid of REINDEX-in-place on
> shared catalog indexes is another thing that's really safety critical.
> Removing V-F related hacks in other places would just be a bonus.
I should've agreed with this in my last post, cos I do. I want very,
very much to get rid of VACUUM FULL just because it's such a sump of
ugly, complex code. But there is a limit to how and when performs what I
now see is a more major surgical operation.
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-01-31 20:41:23|
|Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Augment WAL records for btree delete with GetOldestXmin() to |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-01-31 20:36:23|
|Subject: Re: Eliminating VACUUM FULL WAS: remove flatfiles.c |