X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49453DAF0C for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:13:02 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 75945-08 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:12:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E79FDAEF6 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:12:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j9QGCuX9006953; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:12:57 -0400 (EDT) To: Scott Marlowe Cc: Kenneth Gonsalves , PostgreSQL SQL Subject: Re: why vacuum In-reply-to: <1130339980.2872.12.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> References: <200510261015.17623.lawgon@thenilgiris.com> <1130339980.2872.12.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> Comments: In-reply-to Scott Marlowe message dated "Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:19:40 -0500" Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:12:56 -0400 Message-ID: <6952.1130343176@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200510/336 X-Sequence-Number: 23189 Scott Marlowe 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