Re: That movie

Please see the attached file for details.
>From pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org Tue Aug 19 13:44:34 2003
X-Original-To: pgsql-general-postgresql(dot)org(at)localhost(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.130])
by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77D63D1B970
for <pgsql-general-postgresql(dot)org(at)localhost(dot)postgresql(dot)org>; Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:44:32 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193])
by localhost (neptune.hub.org [64.117.224.130]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 99700-09
for <pgsql-general-postgresql(dot)org(at)localhost(dot)postgresql(dot)org>;
Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:44:22 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr3.postgresql.org (gborg.postgresql.org [64.117.225.160])
by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7184D1B8B8
for <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>; Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:44:21 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from smtp.pspl.co.in (www.pspl.co.in [202.54.11.65] (may be forged))
by svr3.postgresql.org (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h7JGiJlb041499
for <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>; Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:44:21 -0400 (EDT)
(envelope-from shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in)
Received: (from root(at)localhost)
by smtp.pspl.co.in (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h7JGjq9Q008457
for <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>; Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:15:52 +0530
Received: from daithan.intranet.pspl.co.in (daithan.intranet.pspl.co.in [192.168.7.161])
(authenticated bits=0)
by persistent.co.in (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7JGjp3g008444
for <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>; Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:15:51 +0530
From: Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Buglist
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:13:28 +0530
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2
References: <1061292720(dot)1925(dot)79(dot)camel(at)localhost> <200308192110(dot)09958(dot)shridhar_daithankar(at)nospam(dot)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> <x73cfxtyky(dot)fsf(at)yertle(dot)int(dot)kciLink(dot)com>
In-Reply-To: <x73cfxtyky(dot)fsf(at)yertle(dot)int(dot)kciLink(dot)com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200308192213(dot)28086(dot)shridhar_daithankar(at)nospam(dot)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org
X-Archive-Number: 200308/1010
X-Sequence-Number: 47427

On Tuesday 19 August 2003 21:43, Vivek Khera wrote:
> There's a big difference between "noticing that a table needs to be
> vacuumed and running it" and "automatically having the backend free a
> row as soon as we know it is eligible to be (as would normally be
> determined by vacuum)".

Agreed and it would be nice to have. But functionally it's *almost* the same..

> One of these days when I can afford a 14-hour dump/restore, I'll
> upgrade to 7.4 and try autovacuum :-)

FYi, it runs perfectly on 7.3.x IIRC from some posts earlier..So you don't
have to wait too long..

Shridhar