X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D0389DC833 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:14:52 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 62798-04 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:14:56 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8E29DC800 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:14:50 -0400 (AST) 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 jBU3Erls007724; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:14:53 -0500 (EST) To: Bruce Momjian cc: Andrew Sullivan , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: Does VACUUM reorder tables on clustered indices In-reply-to: <200512300300.jBU30DW21618@candle.pha.pa.us> References: <200512300300.jBU30DW21618@candle.pha.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:00:13 -0500" Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:14:53 -0500 Message-ID: <7723.1135912493@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.054 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.054] X-Spam-Score: 0.054 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/1203 X-Sequence-Number: 78051 Bruce Momjian writes: > Tom, has this bug been addressed or documented? No. Please add a TODO: * Make CLUSTER preserve recently-dead tuples per MVCC requirements I have not tested, but I suspect the table-rewriting variants of ALTER TABLE have the same problem. regards, tom lane