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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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