Received: from mail1.expertrade.com (r87-43-dsl.sea.lightrealm.net
	[216.122.43.87])
	by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5E416E39321;
	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 00:01:06 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from d.wall@computer.org)
Received: from reggae (reggae.expertrade.com [216.122.43.90])
	by mail1.expertrade.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA12726;
	Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:00:59 -0700
Message-ID: <016901c0f486$a6372240$5a2b7ad8@expertrade.com>
Reply-To: "David Wall" <d.wall@computer.org>
From: "David Wall" <d.wall@computer.org>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>, <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>
References: <00c401c0f43b$a5423000$5a2b7ad8@expertrade.com>
	<3101.992468005@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<006501c0f45b$eca1c580$5a2b7ad8@expertrade.com>
	<15660.992481431@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: Vacuum analyze in 7.1.1 
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:01:08 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
X-Archive-Number: 200106/511
X-Sequence-Number: 11001

The new vacuum comments are much more clear.  Bravo.

As for the large objects, I'll have to see what happens when I delete a row
that contains a large object.  Sounds like they are not being deleted for me
as I had thought.  That's too bad since I know it must be a common problem
for those who use them.  I use the JDBC library, so I don't really even
create the large objects except through standard JDBC calls like
PreparedStatement.setBytes().  I'll have to see if JDBC does an unlink
anywhere.

David