From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Autovacuum / full vacuum
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:59:28 -0500
Message-ID: <m364ojrm4f.fsf@mobile.int.cbbrowne.com> (raw)
References: <dqigaf$1b98$1@news.hub.org>
> I'm curious as to why autovacuum is not designed to do full vacuum.
Because that's terribly invasive due to the locks it takes out.
Lazy vacuum may chew some I/O, but it does *not* block your
application for the duration.
VACUUM FULL blocks the application. That is NOT something that anyone
wants to throw into the "activity mix" randomly.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="gmail.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/slony.html
Signs of a Klingon Programmer #11: "This machine is a piece of GAGH! I
need dual Pentium processors if I am to do battle with this code!"
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: cbbrowne@acm.org
Subject: Re: Autovacuum / full vacuum
In-Reply-To: <m364ojrm4f.fsf@mobile.int.cbbrowne.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox