Re: VACUUM and transaction ID wraparound

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)" <dba-sql(at)ultimeth(dot)net>
Subject: Re: VACUUM and transaction ID wraparound
Date: 2003-05-22 14:11:17
Message-ID: 17100.1053612677@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> writes:
> On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 02:34:19PM +1000, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>> I beleive they are referring to the difference between VACUUM and VACUUM
>> FULL. The former is faster and doesn't lock tables, but the latter is
>> required to solve transaction wraparound.

> It is? I didn't think VACUUM FULL was ever required.

Either one will get the job done as far as avoiding wraparound goes.
If there's someplace in the docs that seems to you to give a different
impression, please tell me where.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hubert Fröhlich 2003-05-22 14:32:36 postgres and postgis
Previous Message lists 2003-05-22 13:58:01 Re: BUG in lower