From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Does VACUUM reorder tables on clustered indices
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 08:25:24 -0500
Message-ID: <20051219132524.GA6777@phlogiston.dyndns.org> (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>
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 10:08:22PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Just for the record, that behavior is seriously broken: it violates
> MVCC if any of the deleted tuples are still visible to anyone else.
Does it remove tuples that VACUUM FULL wouldn't? I always thought it
did essentially the same thing?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what
you told them to. That actually seems sort of quaint now.
--J.D. Baldwin
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: ajs@crankycanuck.ca
Subject: Re: Does VACUUM reorder tables on clustered indices
In-Reply-To: <20051219132524.GA6777@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
* 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