From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bug in VACUUM FULL ? |
Date: | 2007-03-10 08:05:28 |
Message-ID: | 1173513929.3641.392.camel@silverbirch.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 18:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 16:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I wonder whether this has any implications for HOT ...
>
> > My general feeling, expressed in a number of recent posts was that the
> > VACUUM FULL code really isn't worth the trouble it causes. Especially
> > when CLUSTER does a better job anyway?
>
> Point A: we have to fix the back branches anyway.
OK, my thoughts were too forward-looking.
> Point B: until we have an MVCC-safe CLUSTER, that is not a substitute.
Well, I wasn't actually suggesting we use CLUSTER instead, but there
have been two other viable suggestions made that were MVCC safe and with
much better characteristics (online, faster etc). A proposal for making
CLUSTER MVCC safe was posted also.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-03-10 08:29:12 | Re: My honours project - databases using dynamically attached entity-properties |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-03-10 07:59:55 | Re: scan_recycle_buffers |