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.