Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1011D475FF1 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:00:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from medi.engr.intransa.com (unknown [12.146.157.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5539475E6F for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:00:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from intransa.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by medi.engr.intransa.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id gAKJ0sNB001937; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 11:00:54 -0800 Message-ID: <3DDBDBE5.6000505@intransa.com> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 11:00:53 -0800 From: Medi Montaseri User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020830 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Francisco Reyes Cc: pgsql General List Subject: Re: Closing inactive connections OR user connections limits References: <20021120135345.S30106-100000@zoraida.natserv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200211/864 X-Sequence-Number: 33285 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". > > >