Re: [HACKERS] tables > 1 gig - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] tables > 1 gig
Date
Msg-id 4269.929632929@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] tables > 1 gig  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] tables > 1 gig
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> ... nor do I understand why more people aren't
> complaining about not being able to vacuum tables that are 1.5 gigs that
> they used to be able to vacuum.

Most likely, not very many people with tables that big have adopted 6.5
yet ... if I were running a big site, I'd probably wait for 6.5.1 on
general principles ;-)

I think what we ought to do is finish working out how to make mdtruncate
safe for concurrent backends, and then do it.  That's the right
long-term answer anyway.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] tables > 1 gig
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] tables > 1 gig