Re: New VACUUM FULL still needed?

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: New VACUUM FULL still needed?
Date: 2009-12-15 02:26:22
Message-ID: 1260843982.1955.3436.camel@ebony
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 11:17 +0900, Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > I have enough items emerging from HS to keep me busy much longer than I
> > thought. I'll run with VF if that's OK, since I have some other related
> > changes in that area and it makes sense to understand that code also, if
> > OK with you.
> Sure. Many users want to see HS.
> BTW, New VACUUM FULL patch is waiting for being applied.
> But I heard HS is attempting to modify VFI in another way or remove it
> completely. Do we still need the patch, or reject it and fix VFI in HS?

Plan is to apply patch for new VF, then for me to write another patch to
allow new VF to work with system relations also.

VACUUM FULL INPLACE would then be prohibited if recovery_connections =
on, which given that is the default will pretty much reduce VFI to not
working at all in 8.5. But it remains an option if problems occur.

My intention is to keep all of the code there for 8.5 and then begin
removing old VF code at beginning of 8.6dev. It's been there too long
and is in far too deep to rip it out quickly. There's no mileage in
spending time on removing a non-feature when there is feature work to be

Simon Riggs

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jaime Casanova 2009-12-15 02:31:12 Re: Syntax for partitioning
Previous Message Takahiro Itagaki 2009-12-15 02:17:10 New VACUUM FULL still needed?