From: scott.marlowe <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>
To: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Cc: Medi Montaseri <medi.montaseri@intransa.com>
Cc: Francisco Reyes <lists@natserv.com>
Cc: pgsql General List <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Closing inactive connections OR user connections limits
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:08:57 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0211201506510.21504-100000@css120.ihs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87wun83p0k.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com>
On 20 Nov 2002, Neil Conway wrote:
> Medi Montaseri <medi.montaseri@intransa.com> 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?
Maybe he's thinking of the problems createed when one runs out of disk
space? :-)
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: scott.marlowe@ihs.com, neilc@samurai.com, medi.montaseri@intransa.com, lists@natserv.com, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Closing inactive connections OR user connections limits
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0211201506510.21504-100000@css120.ihs.com>
* 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