Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL
Date: 2009-09-16 18:10:35
Message-ID: 4AB12A1B.2050401@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hackers,

Here's the feedback on replacing VACUUM FULL with VACUUM REWRITE:
http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/database-soup/getting-rid-of-vacuum-full-feedback-needed-33959

Of note:

a) To date, I have yet to hear a single person bring up an actual
real-life use-case where VACUUM FULL was desireable and REWRITE would
not be.  Lots of people have said something hypothetical, but nobody has
come forward with a "I have this database X and several times Y
happened, and only FULL would work ...".  This makes me think that there
very likey are no actual use cases where we need to preserve FULL.

b) Several people have strongly pushed for a phased removal of FULL over
more than one PG version, with a warning message about depreciation.

c) Vivek had some points about required implementation:

"However, there still must be a way to compact the tables that is mvcc
safe. From what I have read and recall, cluster is not. Thus, the vacuum
rewrite would be a mandatory feature (or cluster could be made mvcc safe)."

Is Vivek correct about this?  News to me ...

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2009-09-16 18:20:27
Subject: Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-09-16 17:54:33
Subject: Re: WIP: generalized index constraints

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group