Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL

From: Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL
Date: 2009-09-17 13:35:44
Message-ID: 20090917133544.GE25739@eddie
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 09:48:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Seems like there would
> be lots of situations where short exclusive-lock intervals could be
> tolerated, even though not long ones. So that's another argument
> for being able to set an upper bound on how many tuples get moved
> per call.

Presumably this couldn't easily be an upper bound on the time spent moving
tuples, rather than an upper bound on the number of tuples moved?

--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2009-09-17 13:38:35 Re: generic copy options
Previous Message Robert Haas 2009-09-17 13:26:02 Re: Linux LSB init script