Re: New VACUUM FULL
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-01-04T15:31:47Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 3:04 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > This is a more cautious approach. Completely removing VFI in this > release is a big risk that we need not take; we have little to gain from > doing so and putting it back again will be harder. I am always keen to > push forwards when a new feature is worthwhile, but cleaning up code is > not an important thing this late in release cycle. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on whether we should remove VFI this release cycle, but I thought the reason why there was pressure to do that was because we will otherwise need to make changes to Hot Standby to cope with VFI. Or in other words, I thought that in order to wrap a release we would need to do one of (1) remove VFI and (2) fix HS to cope with VFI, and maybe there was a theory that the former was easier than the latter. But it's possible I may have totally misunderstood the situation. What is your thought on how to handle this? ...Robert