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

Re: BUG #5722: vacuum full does not update last_vacuum statistics

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jochen Erwied <jochen(at)pgsql(dot)erwied(dot)eu>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #5722: vacuum full does not update last_vacuum statistics
Date: 2010-10-25 17:46:13
Message-ID: AANLkTi=ygM2C_DWz9iH6fseyjF6mfbZHoTzjVHt_so1N@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
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?


-- 
greg

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: VMauryDate: 2010-10-25 18:44:01
Subject: BUG #5725: server couldn't start when installing on liveCD
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-10-25 17:28:36
Subject: Re: Segfault in 9.0 inlining SRF

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