| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Problem with pg_upgrade? |
| Date: | 2011-03-30 20:58:33 |
| Message-ID: | 1301518713.15860.4.camel@jdavis-ux.asterdata.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 16:46 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I don't really
> understand why this is an issue in the first place, though. Surely we
> must be setting the XID counter on the new cluster to match the one on
> the old cluster, and migrating the relfrozenxid and datfrozenxid
> settings, so why does it matter if someone runs vacuum freeze?
Because autovacuum may run before those things are properly set, as
Bruce said in the original email:
"I am concerned that somehow autovaccum is running
in frozen mode before I have restored the frozen xids for the table or
database."
I think some kind of hidden GUC might be the best option. I tend to
agree that a third option to the "autovacuum" setting would be
confusing.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-03-30 21:25:39 | Re: Problem with pg_upgrade? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-30 20:48:26 | Re: deadlock_timeout at < PGC_SIGHUP? |