Ok, little language qui pro quo...
I'm sorry for the error...
Denis
At 15/10/01 17.00, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 10:40:17AM +0200, Denis Gasparin wrote:
> > >
> > >It's long since done.
> >
> > ==>> This means that it will not be included in 7.2? I've read 7.2
>
>No, it me
where in the postgres dox can we find info abt the vacuum feature?
thx...
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Ian Barwick wrote:
> I'm doing some work for a smallish company which conducts
> its business largely online. Currently they have a legacy
> mishmash of Oracle and MySQL databases which they wish
> to unify one one platform (RDBMS with client access via
> browser and custom s
> >> More importantly, what is the situation on VACUUM for release 7.2?
> >> It seems from the pgsql-hackers list that there are plans for
> >> a none-exclusively locking VACUUM, e.g.:
> >>
> >>
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=vacuum&hl=en&group=comp.databases.postgresql.hackers&rnum=1&sel
> >> More importantly, what is the situation on VACUUM for release 7.2?
> >> It seems from the pgsql-hackers list that there are plans for
> >> a none-exclusively locking VACUUM, e.g.:
> >>
> >>
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=vacuum&hl=en&group=comp.databases.postgresql.hackers&rnum=1&sel
Erwin Lansing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We are having some trouble with some tables in which we have lots of
> update's (and insert/delete's). "A lot" being several thousands per day
> (I haven't measured the exact numbers recently). VACUUM is running twice
> a day and locks these tables a lo
Barwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 10/10/2001
> 07:27:56 AM
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cc:(bcc: Wesley Sheldahl/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject: [GENERAL] VACUUM, 24/7 availability and 7.2
>
>
> I'm doing some work for a smallish company which conducts
> its busin
Barwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 10/10/2001
> 07:27:56 AM
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cc:(bcc: Wesley Sheldahl/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject: [GENERAL] VACUUM, 24/7 availability and 7.2
>
>
> I'm doing some work for a smallish company which conducts
> its busin
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Just to keep things in perspective, how large are your current databases, and
> what do you or the company consider to be a signficant length of time? Right
> now I have a development database with just a few thousand records of test data,
> and v
