Re: [Fwd: Re: Autovacuum keeps vacuuming a table disabled in pg_autovacuum]

From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
To: Ron St-Pierre <ron(dot)pgsql(at)shaw(dot)ca>
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Autovacuum keeps vacuuming a table disabled in pg_autovacuum]
Date: 2007-06-04 14:47:17
Message-ID: 20070604144717.GC16196@svana.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 07:34:13AM -0700, Ron St-Pierre wrote:
> What do you mean by this? I wanted to do both a VACUUM ANALYZE and a
> VACUUM FULL, so ran VACUUM FULL ANALYZE. Is there something odd about
> VACUUM FULL, other than locking the table it's working on?

It tends to bloat indexes. Also, people tend to find that CLUSTER is
faster anyway.

If all you want is to avoid XID wraparound, an ordinary VACUUM will do
fine.

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bohdan Linda 2007-06-04 14:51:38 Re: High-availability
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-06-04 14:46:33 Re: what to do when pg_cancel_backend() doesnt work?