From: Medi Montaseri <medi.montaseri@intransa.com>
To: Francisco Reyes <lists@natserv.com>
Cc: pgsql General List <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Closing inactive connections OR user connections limits
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 11:00:53 -0800
Message-ID: <3DDBDBE5.6000505@intransa.com> (raw)
References: <20021120135345.S30106-100000@zoraida.natserv.net>
Is this true..... ?
I think from the data integrity point of view, vacuum is more important
than vacuum full.
Is vacuum purges deleted and updated tuples, that is the integrity point
of failure (for
multi-versioning), reclaiming the space is a phsyical issue....
Francisco Reyes wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Medi Montaseri wrote:
>
>
>
>>In 7.2, you can run the vacuum in parallel with other database activities...
>>
>>
>
>As far as I know this is not the case for "vacuum full".
>
>
>
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: medi.montaseri@intransa.com, lists@natserv.com, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Closing inactive connections OR user connections limits
In-Reply-To: <3DDBDBE5.6000505@intransa.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