On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 09/14/2016 07:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> People who are vacuuming because they are out of disk space will be very >>> very unhappy with that solution. > >> The people are usually running out of space for data, while these files >> would be temporary files placed wherever temp_tablespaces points to. I'd >> argue if this is a source of problems, the people are already in deep >> trouble due to sorts, CREATE INDEX, ... as those commands may also >> generate a lot of temporary files. > > Except that if you are trying to recover disk space, VACUUM is what you > are doing, not CREATE INDEX. Requiring extra disk space to perform a > vacuum successfully is exactly the wrong direction to be going in. > See for example this current commitfest entry: > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/649/ > Regardless of what you think of the merits of that patch, it's trying > to solve a real-world problem. And as Robert has already pointed out, > making this aspect of VACUUM more complicated is not solving any > pressing problem. "But we made it faster" is going to be a poor answer > for the next person who finds themselves up against the wall with no > recourse.
I very much agree. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
