RE: anybody know who the damn list owner is? RE: Postgr esqlism & Vacuum?

probably couldn't but even if i could it wouldn't stop inbound mail right?

> -----Original Message-----
> From:    Samy Elashmawy [SMTP:samelash@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent:    Friday, April 14, 2000 12:22 PM
> To:    Oelkers, Phil; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Cc:    'postmaster@postgresql.org'; 'postmaster@hub.org'
> Subject:    Re: anybody know who the damn list owner is? RE: [GENERAL]
> Postgresqlism & Vacuum?
>
> You could change your email address ?
>
> have you tried postgresql.org find the link where you
> subscibe/unsubscirbe.
>
>
> At 07:59 AM 4/14/2000 -0700, Oelkers, Phil wrote:
> >I've been trying to get off this list forever no luck.  I thought
> >I got the damn thing set to nomail, still get mail.
> >
> >DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHERE I CAN CONTACT A
> >LIKE PERSON TO GET OFF THIS DAMN LIST?
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From:    Peter Eisentraut [SMTP:e99re41@DoCS.UU.SE]
> >> Sent:    Friday, April 14, 2000 6:59 AM
> >> To:    Thomas
> >> Cc:    pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> >> Subject:    Re: [GENERAL] Postgresqlism & Vacuum?
> >>
> >> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Thomas wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think there must be something wrong with the optimiser that it's
> >> > "postgresqlism" that you must vacuum analyze frequently.
> >>
> >> One thing that is not widely known is that vacuum actually has two
> >> orthogonal tasks: garbage collection and statistics collection (only
> when
> >> you ANALYZE). The fact that this is combined in one command is a
> >> historical artifact, and there are some voices that want to separate
> the
> >> commands.
> >>
> >> The way I see it, if you have enough disk space you never have to run
> >> vacuum to garbage collect. It might lead to obvious problems when the
> heap
> >> files get so large that it takes more time to physically access them.
> The
> >> alternative is to garbage collect on each transaction commit but that
> >> bears its own set of performance implications.
> >>
> >> The analyze part would probably not need an exclusive lock on the table
> >> but the vacuum certainly does.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders väg 10:115
> >> peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
> >> http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden
> >