Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B24565041F for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:11:45 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 81846-05 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:11:39 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-159.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.159]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2595C650419 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:11:37 -0400 (AST) Received: from perhan.alvh.no-ip.org (190-95-20-42.bk17-dsl.surnet.cl [190.95.20.42]) (authenticated bits=0) by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mBJ3FAbC024689 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:15:13 -0800 Received: by perhan.alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 745E847CCD; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:09:59 -0300 (CLST) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:09:59 -0300 From: Alvaro Herrera To: Michael Monnerie Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: reindexdb dying with SIGPIPE on 8.2.5 Message-ID: <20081219030959.GM5447@alvh.no-ip.org> References: <1218035421.19154.24.camel@oberschatzi.cff> <200812171010.53114@zmi.at> <494A029A.5090503@lelarge.info> <200812190311.58087@zmi.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200812190311.58087@zmi.at> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (lists.commandprompt.com [207.173.203.159]); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:15:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200812/156 X-Sequence-Number: 30989 Michael Monnerie wrote: > On Donnerstag 18 Dezember 2008 Guillaume Lelarge wrote: > > You should do a VACUUM and then a REINDEX. > > Thank you. And as I just learned about CLUSTER... would the correct > order be CLUSTER, VACUUM, REINDEX ? I guess so, as CLUSTER helps a lot > with cleaning up already, so there's less work for VACUUM/REINDEX. > Right? You don't need to vacuum or reindex after a cluster; it removes all dead rows (except those that vacuum won't remove anyway) -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.