| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 07:53:44 |
| Message-ID: | 1253174024.778.112.camel@hvost1700 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 21:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > What we need is VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY and REINDEX CONCURRENTLY.
>
> 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"
if VACUUM FULL is just something that works on a table ends up with
(mostly) compacted one, then doing this CONCURRENTLY should not be
impossible.
If you mean the current version of VACUUM FULL, then this is impossible
indeed.
--
Hannu Krosing http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Scalability and Availability
Services, Consulting and Training
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-09-17 07:54:46 | Re: Hot Standby 0.2.1 |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-09-17 07:47:25 | Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL |