From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon(at)thenilgiris(dot)com>, PostgreSQL SQL <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: why vacuum |
Date: | 2005-10-26 16:12:56 |
Message-ID: | 6952.1130343176@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 23:45, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
>> i was in a minor flame war with a mysql guy - his major grouse was that
>> 'I wouldnt commit mission critical data to a database that needs to be
>> vacuumed once a week'. So why does pg need vacuum?
> Oh man oh man. After reading the article, I realized he was saying that
> he wouldn't trust PostgreSQL to replace Oracle.
Well, that's a slightly more respectable point of view, but Oracle has
surely got its own set of gotchas ... doesn't it still have issues if
you run a transaction that's large enough to overrun the fixed-size
rollback areas (or whatever they call them)?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | chester c young | 2005-10-26 16:12:57 | Re: broken join optimization? (8.0) |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2005-10-26 16:10:27 | Re: why vacuum |