| From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hot standby and removing VACUUM FULL |
| Date: | 2009-11-21 19:32:49 |
| Message-ID: | 4B084061.5030901@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> So I guess what I'm asking is: Does anyone see any show-stoppers in
> removing VACUUM FULL
Here's the disclaimers attached to the new VACUUM REPLACE implementation
from Itagaki:
"We still need traditional VACUUM FULL behavior for system catalog
because we cannot change relfilenode for them. Also, VACUUM FULL REPLACE
is not always better than traditional VACUUM FULL; the new version
requires additional disk space and might be slower if we have a few dead
tuples."
That first part seems like it would limit the ability to completely
discard the current behavior.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-21 19:40:02 | Re: Proposal: USING clause for DO statement |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-11-21 18:56:02 | Re: Proposal: USING clause for DO statement |