Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>>> Barring objections I'm going to press ahead with completing and
>>> committing this; then in a separate patch remove VACUUM FULL INPLACE.
> 
>> Was it our determination that we could remove VFI if we eliminated the
>> system catalogs?  I'm fine with it, I just thought some people had a
>> marginal use case for VFI.
> 
> I thought the consensus was to remove it if possible.  There may still
> be some "marginal" use cases, but they don't justify the work that'd
> be needed to make it play safely with HS; let alone fixing the other
> longstanding gotchas with it, like the double-commit risk.

I think part of the plan was to also provide an online reorg tool that
works by doing dummy UPDATEs, which means that you can get serialization
errors in serializable mode, but doesn't need to lock the table.

-- 
  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

• Re: WIP patch for system-catalog vacuuming via a relation map at 2010-02-05 22:34:23 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: WIP patch for system-catalog vacuuming via a relation map at 2010-02-06 00:55:06 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Andres Freund	Date: 2010-02-06 00:39:53
	Subject: Re: Confusion over Python drivers
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2010-02-05 23:55:39
	Subject: Re: Hot standby documentation