| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Unexpected VACUUM FULL failure |
| Date: | 2007-08-10 18:53:06 |
| Message-ID: | 87ps1v2pd9.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Another argument is that VACUUM FULL is a dinosaur that should probably
> go away entirely someday (a view I believe you share); it should
> therefore not be allowed to drive the design of other parts of the
> system.
Incidentally, every time it comes up we recommend using CLUSTER or ALTER
TABLE. And explaining the syntax for ALTER TABLE is always a bit fiddly. I
wonder if it would make sense to add a "VACUUM REWRITE" which just did the
same as the noop ALTER TABLE we're recommending people do anyways. Then we
could have a HINT from VACUUM FULL which suggests considering VACUUM REWRITE.
I would think this would be 8.4 stuff except if all we want it to do is a
straight noop alter table it's pretty trivial. The hardest part is coming up
with a name for it.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-08-10 19:00:32 | Re: crypting prosrc in pg_proc |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-08-10 18:50:24 | Re: Unexpected VACUUM FULL failure |