Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 11/6/07, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> (Gosh, we really need a name for the sort of vacuum. I was about to say
>> "we'd still need regular regular VACUUMs" :-))
>
> As the new VACUUM variant will be somewhat unsafe, it should
> not replace "regular" VACUUM but get separate name.
What do you mean by unsafe? It is supposed to reclaim all dead tuples a
normal vacuum would, except for HOT updated tuples that can be pruned
without scanning indexes. It doesn't advance the relfrozenxid or update
stats, though.
> VACUUM FAST maybe? Informally "fastvacuum". Something with
> "lazy" or "partial" would also be possibility.
We already call the regular vacuum "lazy" in the source code, as opposed
to VACUUM FULL. Partial is also bit misleading; while it doesn't scan
the whole table, it should find all dead tuples.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
