From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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 04:12:03 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+rF3Eb3=fg-1sN+hWjULfFa-aVrBqg1by_urazMHNb0g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:39 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".
So do you think that other places where we are rewriting the table
with exclusive lock, we should have such mechanism or option and even
if it is not there, it is kind of Todo item and tomorrow someone can
write a patch to improve that situation.
> Otherwise, you have to write the same pages twice, if both CLUSTER and
> FREEZE are required.
Yes, this is completely right and I understand this point, but the
question I had in my mind before writing my last mail was that whether
any or all places having this concept deserves to have an option like
FREEZE?
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2013-10-25 05:08:37 | Re: CLUSTER FREEZE |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2013-10-25 03:31:41 | Re: Compression of full-page-writes |