On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 18:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 16:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I wonder whether this has any implications for HOT ...
>
> > My general feeling, expressed in a number of recent posts was that the
> > VACUUM FULL code really isn't worth the trouble it causes. Especially
> > when CLUSTER does a better job anyway?
>
> Point A: we have to fix the back branches anyway.
OK, my thoughts were too forward-looking.
> Point B: until we have an MVCC-safe CLUSTER, that is not a substitute.
Well, I wasn't actually suggesting we use CLUSTER instead, but there
have been two other viable suggestions made that were MVCC safe and with
much better characteristics (online, faster etc). A proposal for making
CLUSTER MVCC safe was posted also.
-- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com