Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL

On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 12:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> > The update utility being discussed is in danger of confusing these two
> > goals
> > * compact the table using minimal workspace
> > * compact the table with minimal interruption to concurrent updaters
> 
> Actually, the update utility is explicitly meant to satisfy both of
> those goals (possibly with different usage styles).  I don't see any
> particular confusion.

<sigh> It wasn't explicit until now. The confusion was you saying that
"VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY" was an impossible dream, that's why I've
restated it the above way so its clear what we want.

-- Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com