Re: why vacuum

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>
Cc: Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon(at)thenilgiris(dot)com>, PostgreSQL SQL <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: why vacuum
Date: 2005-10-26 16:12:56
Message-ID: 6952.1130343176@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-sql

Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 23:45, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
>> i was in a minor flame war with a mysql guy - his major grouse was that
>> 'I wouldnt commit mission critical data to a database that needs to be
>> vacuumed once a week'. So why does pg need vacuum?

> Oh man oh man. After reading the article, I realized he was saying that
> he wouldn't trust PostgreSQL to replace Oracle.

Well, that's a slightly more respectable point of view, but Oracle has
surely got its own set of gotchas ... doesn't it still have issues if
you run a transaction that's large enough to overrun the fixed-size
rollback areas (or whatever they call them)?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message chester c young 2005-10-26 16:12:57 Re: broken join optimization? (8.0)
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2005-10-26 16:10:27 Re: why vacuum