Re: Name for new VACUUM

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I was thinking about our new version of vacuum. I think it should be
> > called VACUUM NOLOCK to make it clear when you should use it, and we can
> > keep our ordinary VACUUM the same.
>
> I really don't understand why you're so hot to avoid changing the
> default behavior of VACUUM. Name me even one user who *likes* the
> current behavior (ie, VACUUM grabs exclusive lock)? IMHO the default
> behavior *should* change. Otherwise you're just forcing people to
> update their cron scripts, which they wouldn't need to touch if we
> do it the way I want.

I am concerned because UPDATE consumes disk space that never gets
returned to the OS until a traditional vacuum is run. It is true that
after nolock vacuum, the future UPDATE's can use the extra space.

Maybe just call the traditional vacuum VACUUM LOCK. It was the
LOCK/NOLOCK idea that I think was important.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026