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

Re: nested transactions

From: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: nested transactions
Date: 2002-11-29 13:05:41
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Friday 29 November 2002 00:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> But we already have a recycling mechanism for pg_clog.  AFAICS,
> >> creating a parallel log file with a separate recycling mechanism is
> >> a study in wasted effort.
> >
> > But that recycling requires the vacuum of every database in the system.
> > Do people do that frequently enough?
> Once the auto vacuum code is in there, they won't have any choice ;-)

OK, I know postgres needs to be vacuumed every so often (I think its to 
guarantee safe XID wraparound?)  I think the AVD should do something to 
guarnatee this is hapening.  Since I am working on AVD, what are the criterea 
for this?  From the above I assume it also pertains to pg_clog recycling 
(which is related to XID wraparound?), but I know nothing about that.

Right now AVD only performs vacuum analyze on specific tables as it deems they 
need it, it does not perform vacuum on entire databases at any point yet.

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Shridhar DaithankarDate: 2002-11-29 13:19:11
Subject: Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)
Previous:From: Matthew T. O'ConnorDate: 2002-11-29 12:59:20
Subject: Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)

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