Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8F1237BFB3 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:45:59 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 66382-09 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:45:57 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D57937BCE2 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:45:57 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m8TMjr4D025196; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:45:53 -0400 (EDT) To: "Scott Marlowe" cc: "Steve Crawford" , "Peter Kovacs" , pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Do we need vacuuming when tables are regularly dropped? In-reply-to: References: <9815.1222690583@sss.pgh.pa.us> <48E10C95.2050207@pinpointresearch.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Scott Marlowe" message dated "Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:26:22 -0600" Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:45:53 -0400 Message-ID: <25195.1222728353@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane 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: 200809/345 X-Sequence-Number: 30438 "Scott Marlowe" writes: > Also, there was a time when you couldn't do vacuum full on system > tables do to locking issues, and had to take the db down to single > user mode to do so. There was a short period when *concurrent* vacuum fulls on just the wrong combinations of system catalogs could deadlock (because they both needed to look up stuff in the other one). AFAIK we fixed that. It's never been the case that it didn't work at all. regards, tom lane