Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL
Date: 2010-02-01 15:58:02
Message-ID: 1265039882.13782.12413.camel@ebony (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 10:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 10:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> the assumption that the file is less than one disk block,
> >> it should be just as atomic as pg_control updates are.
> 
> > IIRC there were 173 relations affected by this. 4 bytes each we would
> > have more than 512 bytes.
> 
> Where in the world did you get that number?
> 
> There are currently 29 shared relations (counting indexes), and 13
> nailed local relations, which would go into a different map file.
> I'm not sure if the set of local catalogs requiring the map treatment
> is exactly the same as what's presently nailed, but that's probably
> a good approximation.

I was suggesting that we only do shared and nailed relations. Sounds
like you agree.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-02-01 15:59:22
Subject: Re: Hot Standby and deadlock detection
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-02-01 15:50:54
Subject: Re: contrib\xml2 package's xpath_table function in PostgreSQL

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group