Re: Do we need vacuuming when tables are regularly dropped?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Steve Crawford" <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>, "Peter Kovacs" <maxottovonstirlitz(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Do we need vacuuming when tables are regularly dropped?
Date: 2008-09-29 22:45:53
Message-ID: 25195.1222728353@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

"Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Also, there was a time when you couldn't do vacuum full on system
> tables do to locking issues, and had to take the db down to single
> user mode to do so.

There was a short period when *concurrent* vacuum fulls on just the
wrong combinations of system catalogs could deadlock (because they both
needed to look up stuff in the other one). AFAIK we fixed that. It's
never been the case that it didn't work at all.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Steve Crawford 2008-09-29 23:10:38 Re: Do we need vacuuming when tables are regularly dropped?
Previous Message Greg Smith 2008-09-29 21:53:02 Re: PostgreSQL Cache