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


Reply via email to