| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Min Xid problem proposal |
| Date: | 2005-12-10 14:28:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20051210142845.GD1035@surnet.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> From what's been said VACUUM FREEZE will not alter the fact that a
> frozen table will need vacuuming again in the future and so cannot ever
> be read-only. I can't really see any reason to run VACUUM FREEZE...
Yeah.
> If you want to make a table read-only forever, we need a separate
> command to do that, ISTM.
Let's get this goose cooked and then we can improve it. This patch has
been waiting on my queue for too long.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-10 16:15:22 | Re: Log of CREATE USER statement |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-10 14:06:18 | Re: int to inet conversion [or Re: inet to bigint?] |