| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Name for new VACUUM |
| Date: | 2001-08-05 17:45:47 |
| Message-ID: | 3B6D864B.5348155A@tm.ee |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> writes:
> > ... people looked at me like I had two heads when I told them about
> > "vacuum." It wasn't obvious to them what it did.
>
> I won't dispute that, but changing a command name that's been around for
> ten or fifteen years strikes me as a recipe for more confusion, not
> less.
>
> > However, saying that VACUUM NOLOCK and VACUUM LOCK do "more-or-less
> > the same thing" really isn't so. Think about it, the VACUUM LOCK,
> > practically rebuilds a tables representation,
>
> It does no such thing.
Just out of curiosity - does CLUSTER currently "practically rebuild
a tables representation" ?
--------------
Hannu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2001-08-05 17:52:00 | Re: Idea for nested transactions / savepoints |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2001-08-05 17:38:31 | Re: Name for new VACUUM |