Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(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 16:30:20
Message-ID: 20226.1253205020@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> The update utility being discussed is in danger of confusing these two
> goals
> * compact the table using minimal workspace
> * compact the table with minimal interruption to concurrent updaters

Actually, the update utility is explicitly meant to satisfy both of
those goals (possibly with different usage styles). I don't see any
particular confusion.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2009-09-17 16:31:29 Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-09-17 16:24:13 Re: opportunistic tuple freezing