First of all, be aware that we have already collected half the translations
>for the press kit. So at this point, we can only cut paragraphs and not
>edit. These comments would have been more timely a month ago ....
>
>
>
If only I had a nickel :)
>>I believe is false. As long as you have to vacuum the above is not true.
>>
>>
>
>How? Vacuuming does not require the database to be offline. Vacuum full
>does, but that can be eliminated with proper tuning.
>
>
>
No but vacuum will cause your machine to grind to a crawl. Try telling a
customer
that is pushing 240,000 transactions an hour, 24 hours a day to run a
Vacuum.
They are not pleased.
Don't get me wrong. I want to promote as much as the next guy but that
paragraph
is pretty strong.
>And the whole point of the FSM feature is that most databases, with proper
>tuning, should not require any maintainence which needs exclusive locking.
>
>If anybody has evidence that the FSM index management doens't work, then we'll
>cut the paragraph. However, I'm inclined to trust Tom & Co., and my only
>simple tests seemed to uphold the Lazy-Vacuum-ability of indexes.
>
>
>
I could have sworn that Tom said that it might not be fixed. Was that
ever investigated?
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
