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

Re: Problem with pg_upgrade?

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Problem with pg_upgrade?
Date: 2011-03-30 21:44:13
Message-ID: 201103302144.p2ULiDV29689@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I wonder if the fact that these people never reported the bug means
> > there were doing something odd with their servers.
> 
> I just updated the C comment about what we are doing:
> 
>      * Using autovacuum=off disables cleanup vacuum and analyze, but
>      * freeze vacuums can still happen, so we set
>      * autovacuum_freeze_max_age very high.  We assume all datfrozenxid and
>      * relfrozen values are less than a gap of 2000000000 from the current
>      * xid counter, so autovacuum will not touch them.

FYI, 2000000000 is the maximum value for autovacuum_freeze_max_age, so a
user can't set it higher.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2011-03-30 22:30:34
Subject: Re: Process local hint bit cache
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2011-03-30 21:41:53
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and PGCLIENTENCODING

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