Re: pg6.4.2 eating records...

Matthew Hagerty <matthew(at)venux(dot)net> writes:
>>>> <sql to drop all indexes>
>>>> vacuum;
>>>> <sql to create all indexes>
>>>> vacuum analyze;
>>
>> This is a little bizarre, to say the least. It should be
>>>> <sql to drop all indexes>
>>>> vacuum analyze;
>>>> <sql to create all indexes>
>>
>> There's no point in running two vacuums, and there's even less point
>> in dropping/recreating indexes around the vacuum only to proceed to
>> run another vacuum with the indexes in place.

> Well, I do it that way based on your feedback, Tom. ;) You said once that
> you should drop the indexes prior to running vacuum, then another time you
> said vacuum analyze should be run with indexes in place.

I did? That must have been long ago and far away, because I am now well
aware that vacuum analyze doesn't do anything special with indexes...

> So I do both. Is this bad?

Well, other than causing wear and tear on your disk drives, it probably
isn't harmful as long as you've got the cycles to spare. But it's
certainly a waste of time.

>> In all honesty, you are not likely to attract a whole lot of interest
>> in fixing 6.4.* bugs at this late date. My own interest will only
>> extend as far as making sure the bug is not still there in 7.0...

> I guess I'm not really looking for a fix, I was just wondering if this was
> a known problem with 6.4.2 and/or if there was maybe a patch that fixed it
> or something.

Dunno. We've fixed a heckuva lot of bugs since 6.4, but I don't have
enough information to tell if this is one of them. If it remains
unfixed, we'll sure do our best to fix it ... but we'd really like to
see a report against 7.0 before we spend a lot of effort investigating.

regards, tom lane