On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Perhaps. The new implementation of VACUUM FULL is really more like a
> CLUSTER, or one of the rewriting variants of ALTER TABLE. Should all
> of those operations result in an update of last_vacuum? From an
> implementation standpoint it's difficult to say that only some of them
> should, because all of them result in a table that has no immediate
> need for vacuuming. The only argument I can see for having only VACUUM
> FULL update the timestamp is that it's called VACUUM and the others
> aren't. Which is an argument, but not a terribly impressive one IMO.
Perhaps we should have another field last_table_rewrite or something?
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: VMaury||Date: 2010-10-25 18:44:01|
|Subject: BUG #5725: server couldn't start when installing on liveCD|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-10-25 17:28:36|
|Subject: Re: Segfault in 9.0 inlining SRF |