| From: | Medi Montaseri <medi(dot)montaseri(at)intransa(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Francisco Reyes <lists(at)natserv(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql General List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Closing inactive connections OR user connections limits |
| Date: | 2002-11-20 19:00:53 |
| Message-ID: | 3DDBDBE5.6000505@intransa.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-sql |
Is this true..... ?
I think from the data integrity point of view, vacuum is more important
than vacuum full.
Is vacuum purges deleted and updated tuples, that is the integrity point
of failure (for
multi-versioning), reclaiming the space is a phsyical issue....
Francisco Reyes wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Medi Montaseri wrote:
>
>
>
>>In 7.2, you can run the vacuum in parallel with other database activities...
>>
>>
>
>As far as I know this is not the case for "vacuum full".
>
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ren Salomo | 2002-11-20 19:09:13 | Drop NOT NULL constraint !!! |
| Previous Message | Francisco Reyes | 2002-11-20 18:56:36 | Re: Closing inactive connections OR user connections limits |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ren Salomo | 2002-11-20 19:09:13 | Drop NOT NULL constraint !!! |
| Previous Message | Francisco Reyes | 2002-11-20 18:56:36 | Re: Closing inactive connections OR user connections limits |