| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <munro(at)ip9(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CLUSTER FREEZE |
| Date: | 2013-10-25 00:17:22 |
| Message-ID: | 5269B892.5060607@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/24/2013 04:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 10/23/2013 09:58 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> I wonder why anyone would like to freeze during CLUSTER command when
>>> they already have separate way (VACUUM FREEZE) to achieve it, do you
>>> know or can think of any case where user wants to do it along with
>>> Cluster command?
>>
>> "If I'm rewriting the table anyway, let's freeze it".
>>
>> Otherwise, you have to write the same pages twice, if both CLUSTER and
>> FREEZE are required.
>
> I wonder if we should go so far as to make this the default behavior,
> instead of just making it an option.
+1 from me. Can you think of a reason you *wouldn't* want to freeze?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-10-25 02:07:28 | Re: Reasons not to like asprintf |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-24 23:55:20 | Re: CLUSTER FREEZE |