Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03E24758DC for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:33:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from bob.samurai.com (bob.samurai.com [205.207.28.75]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47FBC475843 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:33:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from tokyo.samurai.com (DU150.N224.ResNet.QueensU.CA [130.15.224.150]) by bob.samurai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 438CE1F1C; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:33:21 -0500 (EST) To: Medi Montaseri Cc: Francisco Reyes , pgsql General List Subject: Re: Closing inactive connections OR user connections limits References: <20021120135345.S30106-100000@zoraida.natserv.net> <3DDBDBE5.6000505@intransa.com> From: Neil Conway In-Reply-To: <3DDBDBE5.6000505@intransa.com> Date: 20 Nov 2002 16:33:15 -0500 Message-ID: <87wun83p0k.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com> Lines: 13 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200211/870 X-Sequence-Number: 33291 Medi Montaseri writes: > I think from the data integrity point of view, vacuum is more > important than vacuum full. Why would VACUUM have any effect on data integrity, either positive or negative? Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC