| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | AW: Name for new VACUUM |
| Date: | 2001-08-06 07:55:33 |
| Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA41EB36C@m0114.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Even more to the point, those typical installations do not want
> exclusive-locked VACUUM. Haven't you paid any attention to the user
> complaints we've been hearing for the last N years? People want a
> nonexclusive VACUUM (or no VACUUM at all, but that's not a choice we
can
> offer them now.) That *is* what the typical dbadmin will want to run,
> and that's why I say it should be the default.
I agree.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | mlw | 2001-08-06 11:17:17 | Re: AW: Re: OID wraparound: summary and proposal |
| Previous Message | Turbo Fredriksson | 2001-08-06 07:29:34 | Re: PL/pgSQL: Return multiple rows |