Re: Bug in VACUUM FULL ?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bug in VACUUM FULL ?
Date: 2007-03-09 23:00:06
Message-ID: 4201.1173481206@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"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.
Point B: until we have an MVCC-safe CLUSTER, that is not a substitute.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-03-09 23:02:49 Re: Bug in VACUUM FULL ?
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-03-09 22:38:42 autovacuum next steps, take 3