X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 561B49DC941 for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:08:26 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 80047-08 for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:08:30 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD78B9DC8DA for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:08:23 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBJ38MY4013770; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:08:22 -0500 (EST) To: Alvaro Herrera cc: Martin Marques , frank church , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Does VACUUM reorder tables on clustered indices In-reply-to: <20051218220139.GA1651@surnet.cl> References: <1134940325.43a5d0a5a882e@webmail.adontendev.net> <20051218220139.GA1651@surnet.cl> Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera message dated "Sun, 18 Dec 2005 19:01:39 -0300" Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:08:22 -0500 Message-ID: <13769.1134961702@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.016 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016] X-Spam-Score: 0.016 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/152 X-Sequence-Number: 23694 Alvaro Herrera writes: > Note that while reordering, CLUSTER also gets rid of dead tuples, so if > you cluster you don't need to vacuum. Just for the record, that behavior is seriously broken: it violates MVCC if any of the deleted tuples are still visible to anyone else. regards, tom lane