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

Re: Unexpected VACUUM FULL failure

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Unexpected VACUUM FULL failure
Date: 2007-08-10 23:20:47
Message-ID: 87d4xv2cz4.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:

> It would be better to release 8.3 with a new, clean, fast implementation
> of VF, than to release it with code that we *think* is right, but has so
> far proved a source of some truly obscure bugs.

Well building a suitable replacement for VACUUM FULL is more work than I was
proposing. The no-op ALTER TABLE rebuild still has the disadvantage of
requiring 2x the space taken by the table (and potentially more if you have
large indexes).

I also think it's a safer course of action to create a new command, spend one
or two releases improving it until we're sure it meets everyone's needs, then
drop the old command.

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-08-11 01:25:34
Subject: regexp_matches and regexp_split are inconsistent
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-08-10 22:52:36
Subject: Re: regexp_split_to_array hangs backend

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