On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 18:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 16:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I wonder whether this has any implications for HOT ... > > > My general feeling, expressed in a number of recent posts was that the > > VACUUM FULL code really isn't worth the trouble it causes. Especially > > when CLUSTER does a better job anyway? > > Point A: we have to fix the back branches anyway.
OK, my thoughts were too forward-looking. > Point B: until we have an MVCC-safe CLUSTER, that is not a substitute. Well, I wasn't actually suggesting we use CLUSTER instead, but there have been two other viable suggestions made that were MVCC safe and with much better characteristics (online, faster etc). A proposal for making CLUSTER MVCC safe was posted also. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
