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)
Description: PGP signature