Re: [HACKERS] tables > 1 gig

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] tables > 1 gig
Date: 1999-06-17 15:22:09
Message-ID: 4269.929632929@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> ... nor do I understand why more people aren't
> complaining about not being able to vacuum tables that are 1.5 gigs that
> they used to be able to vacuum.

Most likely, not very many people with tables that big have adopted 6.5
yet ... if I were running a big site, I'd probably wait for 6.5.1 on
general principles ;-)

I think what we ought to do is finish working out how to make mdtruncate
safe for concurrent backends, and then do it. That's the right
long-term answer anyway.

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1999-06-17 15:24:32 Re: [HACKERS] tables > 1 gig
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-06-17 15:13:22 Re: [HACKERS] tables > 1 gig