On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:59:41PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 08:35:43PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 12/11/14 11:44 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
We want to finish with VACUUM FREEZE without the FULL, unless we
don't care about missing visibility maps and free
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 08:35:43PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 12/11/14 11:44 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
We want to finish with VACUUM FREEZE without the FULL, unless we
don't care about missing visibility maps and free space maps.
I have create the attached initdb patch to update this.
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I think we could go to
PG_CMD_PUTS(ANALYZE;\nVACUUM FULL FREEZE;\n);
without any degradation of the intended results.
Another idea would be to drop the FULL part and make this
PG_CMD_PUTS(ANALYZE;\nVACUUM FREEZE;\n);
We want to finish with VACUUM FREEZE
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
We want to finish with VACUUM FREEZE without the FULL, unless we
don't care about missing visibility maps and free space maps.
Oh, good point. I had forgotten about that issue.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB:
On 12/11/14 11:44 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
We want to finish with VACUUM FREEZE without the FULL, unless we
don't care about missing visibility maps and free space maps.
Why would we care, and if we do, why does VACUUM FULL remove them?
You can also run plain VACUUM after FULL to put the maps
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
initdb currently does
PG_CMD_PUTS(ANALYZE;\nVACUUM FULL;\nVACUUM FREEZE;\n);
FREEZE is now part of FULL, so this seems redundant. Also, ANALYZE can
be run as part of VACUUM. So this could be
PG_CMD_PUTS(VACUUM FULL ANALYZE;\n);
Merging the
