From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Martin Marques <martin(at)bugs(dot)unl(dot)edu(dot)ar>, frank church <pgsql(at)adontendev(dot)net>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Does VACUUM reorder tables on clustered indices |
Date: | 2005-12-19 04:29:36 |
Message-ID: | 20051219042935.GA5692@surnet.cl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
Tom Lane escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Note that while reordering, CLUSTER also gets rid of dead tuples, so if
> > you cluster you don't need to vacuum.
>
> Just for the record, that behavior is seriously broken: it violates
> MVCC if any of the deleted tuples are still visible to anyone else.
Well, FWIW, the fact that the CLUSTER command exists at all is broken
IMHO ... but meanwhile, are you suggesting that CLUSTER should be fixed
to retain tuples that are visible to running transactions?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | OKADA Satoshi | 2005-12-19 05:20:35 | Recovery from multi trouble |
Previous Message | Trent Shipley | 2005-12-19 03:17:35 | Re: Automatic function replanning |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew Smith | 2005-12-19 05:57:48 | Help on a complex query (avg data for day of the week) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-19 03:08:22 | Re: Does VACUUM reorder tables on clustered indices |