On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Perhaps. The new implementation of VACUUM FULL is really more like a > CLUSTER, or one of the rewriting variants of ALTER TABLE. Should all > of those operations result in an update of last_vacuum? From an > implementation standpoint it's difficult to say that only some of them > should, because all of them result in a table that has no immediate > need for vacuuming. The only argument I can see for having only VACUUM > FULL update the timestamp is that it's called VACUUM and the others > aren't. Which is an argument, but not a terribly impressive one IMO.
Perhaps we should have another field last_table_rewrite or something? -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
