| From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Thomas F(dot)O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: VACUUM FULL FREEZE is unsafe |
| Date: | 2004-11-30 16:55:32 |
| Message-ID: | 41ACA604.2000504@Yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/27/2004 7:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Thomas F.O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> writes:
>> So why not have VACUUM FULL FREEZE just do what you propose: VACUUM
>> FULL then VACUUM FREEZE.
>
> The objective is to make it more safe, not less so. Doing that would
> require rewriting a whole bunch of code, which I am not up for at this
> stage of the release cycle.
If the proper fix is too invasive for 8.0, then making FULL and FREEZE
mutually exclusive is IMHO the right thing to do for 8.0.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-11-30 17:04:25 | Re: Opinions on Usenet ... |
| Previous Message | Mark Wong | 2004-11-30 16:55:01 | Re: 8.0beta5 results w/ dbt2 |