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

Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL
Date: 2010-02-03 17:31:12
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 11:50 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've concluded that that's too large a change to undertake for 9.0

> The purpose of this was to make the big changes in 9.0. If we aren't
> going to do that it seems like we shouldn't bother at all.

No, the purpose of this was to get rid of VACUUM FULL INPLACE in 9.0.
I'm not interested in destabilizing the code (even more) just to avoid
one small internal kluge.  The proposed magic field in struct Relation
is the only part of this that I'd foresee reverting later.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg Sabino MullaneDate: 2010-02-03 17:34:43
Subject: Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings
Previous:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2010-02-03 17:27:27
Subject: Re: Add on_trusted_init and on_untrusted_init to plperl UPDATED [PATCH]

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