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

Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL
Date: 2010-01-31 20:40:07
Message-ID: 1264970407.13782.8635.camel@ebony (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 15:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

> If the only benefit of getting rid of VACUUM FULL were simplifying
> Hot Standby, I'd agree with you.  But there are numerous other benefits.
> The double-commit hack you mention is something we need to get rid of
> for general system stability (because of the risk of PANIC if the vacuum
> fails after the first commit).  Getting rid of REINDEX-in-place on
> shared catalog indexes is another thing that's really safety critical.
> Removing V-F related hacks in other places would just be a bonus.

I should've agreed with this in my last post, cos I do. I want very,
very much to get rid of VACUUM FULL just because it's such a sump of
ugly, complex code. But there is a limit to how and when performs what I
now see is a more major surgical operation.

 Simon Riggs 

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-01-31 20:41:23
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Augment WAL records for btree delete with GetOldestXmin() to
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-01-31 20:36:23
Subject: Re: Eliminating VACUUM FULL WAS: remove flatfiles.c

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group