Tom Lane wrote:
>>In fact, I think it is so bad, that I think we need to back-port a fix to
>>previous versions and issue a notice of some kind.
>They already do issue notices --- see VACUUM.
>A real fix (eg the forcible stop we were talking about earlier) will not
>be reasonable to back-port.
I hope this question isn't too stupid....
Is it be possible to create a "vacuum wraparound" or "vacuum xidreset"
command which would do the work required to fix the wraparound problem,
without being as expensive as a normal vacuum of an entire database?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: pgsql||Date: 2005-02-18 18:00:39|
|Subject: Re: Data loss, vacuum, transaction wrap-around|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-02-18 17:10:09|
|Subject: Re: Data loss, vacuum, transaction wrap-around |