Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Hmm ... reading that over again, it seems like there is a pretty
>> obvious solution.
> This doesn't seem totally horrible. But, before you go do it, do we
> have a clearly-defined plan for the rest of the project?
Rest of what project? Removing vacuum full isn't a necessary component
of that. It would enable doing CLUSTER on pg_class, and it would
eliminate the crock of REINDEX having to reindex shared indexes
in-place. It could probably be justified even without any changes in
our approach to vacuum.
> ... only need this if we're absolutely confident that rewriting the table
> in place is just not an option worth keeping around. It's unclear to
> me that everyone is convinced of that, and even if they are, it's
> unclear to me what we plan to implement instead.
I thought we were pretty well agreed that a seqscan variant of
CLUSTER would be worth doing. Whether we take the next step by
eliminating vacuum full is a different question, but the shape of
the substitute seems perfectly clear.
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
