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: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(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 01:19:09
Message-ID: 3836.1253150349@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:
> What we need is VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY and REINDEX CONCURRENTLY.

VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY is a contradiction in terms. Wishing it were
possible doesn't make it so.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2009-09-17 01:20:24 Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2009-09-17 01:18:08 Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL