| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: double vacuum in initdb |
| Date: | 2014-12-11 02:44:40 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYVNQmDHuHEuDLyX=dbgEo=1BSceC9+4fO+hR1n1B5u5Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> In an unrelated change, use VACUUM FULL; VACUUM FREEZE; rather than
> a single VACUUM FULL FREEZE command, to respond to my worries of a
> couple days ago about the reliability of doing this in one go.
>
> That was a long time ago. Is that still applicable?
Gosh, I hope not. Note that that was back when we still had old-style
VACUUM FULL, which was significantly more fragile than what we've got
now, I think...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2014-12-11 02:50:53 | Re: tracking commit timestamps |
| Previous Message | Andrew Gierth | 2014-12-11 02:19:00 | Re: Final Patch for GROUPING SETS |