Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Just out of curiosity - does CLUSTER currently "practically rebuild
> > a tables representation" ?
>
> CLUSTER currently *loses* most of a table's representation :-(.
> It needs work.
The easiest implememntaion of CLUSTER seems t
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Just out of curiosity - does CLUSTER currently "practically rebuild
> > a tables representation" ?
>
> CLUSTER currently *loses* most of a table's representation :-(.
> It needs work.
at least \h CLUSTER in psql seems to imply th
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just out of curiosity - does CLUSTER currently "practically rebuild
> a tables representation" ?
CLUSTER currently *loses* most of a table's representation :-(.
It needs work.
But since the whole point of CLUSTER is to physically rearrange the
tuples o
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ... people looked at me like I had two heads when I told them about
> > "vacuum." It wasn't obvious to them what it did.
>
> I won't dispute that, but changing a command name that's been around for
> ten or fifteen years strikes me as a rec
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why rename VACUUM, why not create a new command RECLAIM, or something like
> > that. RECLAIM does the VACUUM NOLOCK, while vacuum does the locking.
>
> Um, that gets the default backwards IMHO, where "default" = "what
> existing scripts wil
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > VACUUM DEFRAG?
> > VACUUM COMPRESS?
>
> While these look kinda ugly to me, I can find no stronger objection than
> that. (Well, maybe I could complain that these overstate what old-style
> vacuum actually does, but that's even weaker.) What do other people
> think?
Wha
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why rename VACUUM, why not create a new command RECLAIM, or something like
> that. RECLAIM does the VACUUM NOLOCK, while vacuum does the locking.
Um, that gets the default backwards IMHO, where "default" = "what
existing scripts will do".
> The term RECLAIM will
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Maybe just call the traditional vacuum VACUUM LOCK. It was the
> > LOCK/NOLOCK idea that I think was important.
>
> Right now it's called VACUUM FULL, but I'm not particularly wedded to
> that name. Does anyone else like VACUUM LOCK? Or have an even better
> idea?
Why r
