Обсуждение: Last chance to object to MVCC-safe CLUSTER

Awhile back Csaba Nagy <nagy@ecircle-ag.com> wrote:
> Making cluster MVCC-safe will kill my back-door of clustering a hot
> table while I run a full DB backup.

Are we agreed that the TRUNCATE-based workaround shown here
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-03/msg00606.php
is an adequate response to this objection?

(This assumes of course that TRUNCATE will never become MVCC-safe,
but I think that's a reasonable thing to assume.  I notice we don't
document TRUNCATE as unsafe ... will go fix that.)
        regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> Awhile back Csaba Nagy <nagy@ecircle-ag.com> wrote:
> > Making cluster MVCC-safe will kill my back-door of clustering a hot
> > table while I run a full DB backup.
> 
> Are we agreed that the TRUNCATE-based workaround shown here
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-03/msg00606.php
> is an adequate response to this objection?
> 
> (This assumes of course that TRUNCATE will never become MVCC-safe,
> but I think that's a reasonable thing to assume.  I notice we don't
> document TRUNCATE as unsafe ... will go fix that.)

Yes, I agree on all points.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://www.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 18:09, Tom Lane wrote:
> Awhile back Csaba Nagy <nagy@ecircle-ag.com> wrote:
> > Making cluster MVCC-safe will kill my back-door of clustering a hot
> > table while I run a full DB backup.
> 
> Are we agreed that the TRUNCATE-based workaround shown here
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-03/msg00606.php
> is an adequate response to this objection?

That workaround should actually work. It is more work but the desired
goal is achieved.

Cheers,
Csaba.