Re: Hot standby and removing VACUUM FULL

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> There's no equivalent of XLogArchivingActive()?

> XLogArchivingMode() == false enables us to skip WAL-logging in
> operations like CLUSTER or COPY, which is a big optimization. I don't
> see anything like that in Hot Standby. There is a few small things that
> could be skipped, but nothing noticeable.

Huh? Surely HS requires XLogArchivingMode as a prerequisite ...

> It's great from usability point of view that you don't need to enable it
> beforehand,

... which also means that I don't understand this statement.

> Anyway, I think I have enough courage now to just rip out the VACUUM
> FULL support from HS. If VACUUM FULL is still there when we're ready to
> go to beta, we can introduce a "do you want VACUUM FULL or hot standby?"
> switch in the master, or some other ugly workaround.

Agreed, we have more than enough worries without worrying about making
that work. (Do we have a list of open issues somewhere, so that this
won't get forgotten?)

regards, tom lane