| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |
| Date: | 2015-04-21 06:39:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20150421063937.GA14483@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-04-20 17:13:29 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Didn't you think any of the TODO threads had workable solutions? And
> don't expect adding an additional file per relation will be zero cost
> --- added over the lifetime of 200M transactions, I question if this
> approach would be a win.
Note that normally you'd not run with a 200M transaction freeze max age
on a busy server. Rather around a magnitude more.
Think about this being used on a time partionioned table. Right now all
the partitions have to be fully rescanned on a regular basis - quite
painful. With something like this normally only the newest partitions
will have to be.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-04-21 06:53:22 | Re: Streaming replication and WAL archive interactions |
| Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2015-04-21 06:35:41 | Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW |