> Even more to the point, those typical installations do not want
> exclusive-locked VACUUM. Haven't you paid any attention to the user
> complaints we've been hearing for the last N years? People want a
> nonexclusive VACUUM (or no VACUUM at all, but that's not a choice we
can
> offer them now
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> Not necessarily. Concurrent VACUUM does truncate the relation if it can
> > >> do so conveniently --- for example, it will successfully reclaim space
> > >> if you do "DELETE FROM foo; VACUUM foo;". It just doesn't try
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I was thinking about our new version of vacuum. I think it should be
> > called VACUUM NOLOCK to make it clear when you should use it, and we can
> > keep our ordinary VACUUM the same.
>
> I really don't understand why you're so hot to avoid changi
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was thinking about our new version of vacuum. I think it should be
> called VACUUM NOLOCK to make it clear when you should use it, and we can
> keep our ordinary VACUUM the same.
I really don't understand why you're so hot to avoid changing the
defau
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I really don't understand why you're so hot to avoid changing the
>> default behavior of VACUUM.
> I am concerned because UPDATE consumes disk space that never gets
> returned to the OS until a traditional vacuum is run.
Not necessarily. Concurrent V
