| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net> |
| Cc: | Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 7.2.3? |
| Date: | 2002-09-30 18:11:42 |
| Message-ID: | 23368.1033409502@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net> writes:
> Should an advisory be issued for production sites to not perform a
> vacuum full with a notice that a bug fix will be coming shortly?
People seem to be misunderstanding the bug. Whether your vacuum is FULL
or not (or VERBOSE or not, or ANALYZE or not) is not relevant. The
dangerous thing is to execute a VACUUM that's not a single-table VACUUM
*as a non-superuser*. The options don't matter. If you see any notices
about "skipping tables" out of VACUUM, then you are at risk.
I'm not averse to issuing an announcement, but let's be sure we have
the details straight.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-30 18:18:57 | Re: CVS split problems |
| Previous Message | Mike Sosteric | 2002-09-30 18:11:36 | Re: [GENERAL] arrays |