| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL |
| Date: | 2009-09-17 15:25:28 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070909170825m8499bd7w63d3ea8c409c8fe9@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 21:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY is a contradiction in terms. Wishing it were
>>> possible doesn't make it so.
>
>> It depends on what do you mean by "VACUUM FULL"
>
> Anything that moves tuples is not acceptable as a hidden background
> operation, because it will break applications that depend on CTID.
I'm a bit confused. CTIDs change all the time anyway, whenever you
update the table. What could someone possibly be using them for?
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-09-17 15:26:19 | FSM search modes |
| Previous Message | Emmanuel Cecchet | 2009-09-17 15:07:33 | Re: generic copy options |