| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL |
| Date: | 2009-09-17 14:21:54 |
| Message-ID: | 10262.1253197314@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 21:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY is a contradiction in terms. Wishing it were
>> possible doesn't make it so.
> It depends on what do you mean by "VACUUM FULL"
Anything that moves tuples is not acceptable as a hidden background
operation, because it will break applications that depend on CTID.
The utility Heikki is talking about is something that DBAs would
invoke explicitly, presumably with an understanding of the side effects.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2009-09-17 14:24:53 | Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-17 14:05:31 | Re: generic copy options |