| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Manual anti-wraparound vacuums |
| Date: | 2011-11-11 17:24:21 |
| Message-ID: | 4EBD5A45.20407@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11.11.2011 19:15, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 11.11.2011 17:47, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (3) In disaster
>> recovery scenarios, the last thing we want is to be imposing extra
>> conditions on what an already-stressed DBA has to do to fix things;
>> especially extra conditions that are different from the way it's worked
>> for the last ten years.
>
> True.
On second thought, if XID wraparound is close enough that the DBA has to
log in to do manual vacuums to avoid it, relfrozenxid of the
trouble-making tables are surely older than default
vacuum_freeze_table_age, so plain VACUUM is enough to scan the whole table.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Kerr | 2011-11-11 17:30:18 | Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-11-11 17:20:39 | Re: Multiple Extensions |