Re: Bug in VACUUM FULL ?

From: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bug in VACUUM FULL ?
Date: 2007-03-10 08:05:28
Message-ID: 1173513929.3641.392.camel@silverbirch.site
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 18:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 16:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I wonder whether this has any implications for HOT ...
>
> > My general feeling, expressed in a number of recent posts was that the
> > VACUUM FULL code really isn't worth the trouble it causes. Especially
> > when CLUSTER does a better job anyway?
>
> Point A: we have to fix the back branches anyway.

OK, my thoughts were too forward-looking.

> Point B: until we have an MVCC-safe CLUSTER, that is not a substitute.

Well, I wasn't actually suggesting we use CLUSTER instead, but there
have been two other viable suggestions made that were MVCC safe and with
much better characteristics (online, faster etc). A proposal for making
CLUSTER MVCC safe was posted also.

--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2007-03-10 08:29:12 Re: My honours project - databases using dynamically attached entity-properties
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2007-03-10 07:59:55 Re: scan_recycle_buffers