Somehow this moved to the pgadmin list. It was intended for pgsql-admin. My apologies. This is a dba task, I'd never expect pgadmin would do this.
From: Michael Shapiro [mailto:mshapir...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 9:26 AM To: Guillaume Lelarge Cc: Little, Douglas; PgAdmin Support Subject: Re: [pgadmin-support] fsm and vacuum I understand, but in this case, since the option is offered next to the safe one, most people won't know it isn't safe. I certainly didn't until I read this posting. I know generally what vacuuming does, but I had no idea that postgres offered a potentially damaging option. Also, PgAdmin sometimes tells me that a table needs vacuuming, so it is already "advising" people in that area ... On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Guillaume Lelarge <guilla...@lelarge.info<mailto:guilla...@lelarge.info>> wrote: Le 03/12/2010 15:17, Michael Shapiro a écrit : > The document http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/VACUUM_FULL says: > > VACUUM FULL, unlike VACUUM, tuples data that has not been deleted, moving it > into spaces earlier in the file that have been freed. Once it's created a > free space at the end of the file, it truncates the file so that the OS > knows that space is free and may be reused for other things. Moving in-use > data around this way has some major downsides and side-effects, especially > the way VACUUM FULL does it. There are better ways to free space if you need > to and better ways to optimize tables (see below) so *you should essentially > never use VACUUM FULL*. > > > PgAdmin does not give the user a comparable warning when it goes to execute > a VACCUM FULL. Given the potential problems with the FULL option, would it > make sense for PgAdmin to issue a warning to this effect? > I'm not sure this is the role of pgAdmin to warn people they are doing potentially stupid things. -- Guillaume http://www.postgresql.fr http://dalibo.com
