Re: [HACKERS] VACUUM FULL during initdb

2010-04-05 Thread Tom Lane 
Takahiro Itagaki  writes:
> Do we still need VACUUM FULL in initdb? VACUUM FULL in 9.0 rewrites
> all tables, so those operations are a little more expensive than
> previous releases. Is it worth replacing them into VACUUM?

I had left it that way intentionally to make sure there was nothing
depending on catalogs retaining their original relfilenode number.
I'm not sure that speed of initdb is a particularly significant factor.

regards, tom lane

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] VACUUM FULL during initdb

2010-04-04 Thread Takahiro Itagaki 
Do we still need VACUUM FULL in initdb? VACUUM FULL in 9.0 rewrites
all tables, so those operations are a little more expensive than
previous releases. Is it worth replacing them into VACUUM?

make_template0(void)
Finally vacuum to clean up dead rows in pg_database
"VACUUM FULL pg_database;\n",

vacuum_db(void)
PG_CMD_PUTS("ANALYZE;\nVACUUM FULL;\nVACUUM FREEZE;\n");

Regards,
---
Takahiro Itagaki
NTT Open Source Software Center


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers