From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Martin Marques <martin@bugs.unl.edu.ar>
Cc: frank church <pgsql@adontendev.net>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Does VACUUM reorder tables on clustered indices
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 01:29:36 -0300
Message-ID: <20051219042935.GA5692@surnet.cl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <13769.1134961702@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <1134940325.43a5d0a5a882e@webmail.adontendev.net>
<Pine.LNX.4.61.0512181840350.20029@bugs.unl.edu.ar>
<20051218220139.GA1651@surnet.cl>
<13769.1134961702@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Tom Lane escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> 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.
Well, FWIW, the fact that the CLUSTER command exists at all is broken
IMHO ... but meanwhile, are you suggesting that CLUSTER should be fixed
to retain tuples that are visible to running transactions?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@commandprompt.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, martin@bugs.unl.edu.ar, pgsql@adontendev.net
Subject: Re: Does VACUUM reorder tables on clustered indices
In-Reply-To: <20051219042935.GA5692@surnet.cl>
* 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