Greg Smith wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> So I guess what I'm asking is: Does anyone see any show-stoppers in >> removing VACUUM FULL > Here's the disclaimers attached to the new VACUUM REPLACE implementation > from Itagaki: > > "We still need traditional VACUUM FULL behavior for system catalog > because we cannot change relfilenode for them. Also, VACUUM FULL REPLACE > is not always better than traditional VACUUM FULL; the new version > requires additional disk space and might be slower if we have a few dead > tuples." > > That first part seems like it would limit the ability to completely > discard the current behavior.
For system catalog,s you could still use a utility like the one I experimented with at http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4ab15065.1000...@enterprisedb.com. Essentially, do a bunch of dummy UPDATEs on the rows that you want to move. It can cause serialization errors in concurrent updaters, like any UPDATE, but I think it would be good enough for the narrow remaining use case of shrinking system catalogs. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
