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

Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL
Date: 2010-02-01 15:15:39
Message-ID: 1265037339.13782.12328.camel@ebony (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 10:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

> the assumption that the file is less than one disk block,
> it should be just as atomic as pg_control updates are.

IIRC there were 173 relations affected by this. 4 bytes each we would
have more than 512 bytes.

ISTM you need to treat some of those system relations just as normal
relations rather than give everybody a map entry.

 Simon Riggs 

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-02-01 15:27:21
Subject: Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-02-01 15:11:29
Subject: Re: Deadlock in vacuum (check fails)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group