| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rod Taylor <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Allow "snapshot too old" error, to prevent bloat |
| Date: | 2015-02-19 18:54:35 |
| Message-ID: | 1362088639.1929973.1424372075059.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Rod Taylor <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Would pg_dump be able to opt-out of such a restriction?
I don't see how, since vacuum would be removing recently dead
tuples that are still visible; the alternative to getting a
"snapshot too old" error when reading a page which could be
affected is to return incorrect results, and nobody wants that.
The best you could do if you wanted to run pg_dump (or similar) and
it might take more time than your old_snapshot_threshold would be
to increase the threshold, reload, dump, set it back to the
"normal" setting, and reload again.
Andrew's suggestion of setting this per table would not help here.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-02-19 19:10:21 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0 |
| Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2015-02-19 18:54:27 | Re: Allow "snapshot too old" error, to prevent bloat |