OK, wording updated. Thanks.
---
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 07:22:21PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 12:49:55PM -0500, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > > On Tue, 26 Dec 2006
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 07:22:21PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 12:49:55PM -0500, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:12:45 +0100
> > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 12:04:40PM -0500, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > > > Now i
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 12:49:55PM -0500, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:12:45 +0100
> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 12:04:40PM -0500, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > > Now it certainly seems to me that it should behave as described given
> > > the definit
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:12:45 +0100
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 12:04:40PM -0500, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > Now it certainly seems to me that it should behave as described given
> > the definition of VACUUM FULL so I am a little confused by my tests.
> > My test table
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 06:12:45PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 12:04:40PM -0500, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > Now it certainly seems to me that it should behave as described given
> > the definition of VACUUM FULL so I am a little confused by my tests.
> > My test
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 12:04:40PM -0500, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> I have been testing this statement and find that it seems not quite
> true. Although ctid changes on update, VACUUM FULL does not change it.
> What it does do is make lower areas available again so an update after a
> VACUUM FULL c
