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>, 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 01:35:25 |
Message-ID: | 3999.1253151325@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 way I read the thread so far is that there are multiple
> requirements:
> * Shrink a table efficiently - when time and space available to do so
To be addressed by the CLUSTER-based solution (VACUUM REWRITE or
whatever we call it).
> * Shrink a table in place - when no space available
To be addressed by the UPDATE-style tuple-mover (which could be thought
of as VACUUM FULL rewritten to not use any special mechanisms).
> * Shrink a table concurrently - when no dedicated time available
Wishful thinking, which should not stop us from proceeding with the
solutions we know how to implement.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-17 01:41:13 | Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-09-17 01:32:45 | Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL |