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

Re: Press Release

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>,pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Press Release
Date: 2003-10-29 22:24:18
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

First of all, be aware that we have already collected half the translations 
for the press kit.  So at this point, we can only cut paragraphs and not 
edit.  These comments would have been more timely a month ago ....

> I believe is false. As long as you have to vacuum the above is not true.

How?  Vacuuming does not require the database to be offline.  Vacuum full 
does, but that can be eliminated with proper tuning.

> as long as their is a potential that we have to use the reindex command the 
> isn't true. 

But reindex can now be eliminated if the FSM is tuned right.

> Anything that the "system" requires (which does not include transactions) 
> that causes a lock for any period of time would invalidate the above.

And the whole point of the FSM feature is that most databases, with proper 
tuning, should not require any maintainence which needs exclusive locking.

If anybody has evidence that the FSM index management doens't work, then we'll 
cut the paragraph.  However, I'm inclined to trust Tom & Co., and my only 
simple tests seemed to uphold the Lazy-Vacuum-ability of indexes.

-Josh Berkus
 Aglio Database Solutions
 San Francisco

In response to


pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2003-10-29 22:58:42
Subject: Re: Press Release and eRServer
Previous:From: scott.marloweDate: 2003-10-29 22:01:21
Subject: Re: Press Release

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