On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 07:53:06PM +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Another argument is that VACUUM FULL is a dinosaur that should probably
> > go away entirely someday (a view I believe you share); it should
> > therefore not be allowed to drive the design of other parts of the
> > system.
> Incidentally, every time it comes up we recommend using CLUSTER or ALTER
> TABLE. And explaining the syntax for ALTER TABLE is always a bit fiddly. I
> wonder if it would make sense to add a "VACUUM REWRITE" which just did the
> same as the noop ALTER TABLE we're recommending people do anyways. Then we
> could have a HINT from VACUUM FULL which suggests considering VACUUM REWRITE.
> I would think this would be 8.4 stuff except if all we want it to do is a
> straight noop alter table it's pretty trivial. The hardest part is coming up
> with a name for it.

One question... should we have a vacuum variant that also reindexes? Or
does that just naturally fall out of the rewrite?

BTW, rewrite sounds fine to me... anything but full, which is constantly
confused with a "full database vacuum".
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

Attachment: pgpnNufc2d6V6.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to