From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
Cc: Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon@thenilgiris.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL SQL <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: why vacuum
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:12:56 -0400
Message-ID: <6952.1130343176@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1130339980.2872.12.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
References: <200510261015.17623.lawgon@thenilgiris.com>
<1130339980.2872.12.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com> writes:
> On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 23:45, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
>> i was in a minor flame war with a mysql guy - his major grouse was that
>> 'I wouldnt commit mission critical data to a database that needs to be
>> vacuumed once a week'. So why does pg need vacuum?
> Oh man oh man. After reading the article, I realized he was saying that
> he wouldn't trust PostgreSQL to replace Oracle.
Well, that's a slightly more respectable point of view, but Oracle has
surely got its own set of gotchas ... doesn't it still have issues if
you run a transaction that's large enough to overrun the fixed-size
rollback areas (or whatever they call them)?
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, smarlowe@g2switchworks.com, lawgon@thenilgiris.com
Subject: Re: why vacuum
In-Reply-To: <6952.1130343176@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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