| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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: | 2015-07-13 15:05:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20150713150513.GA25610@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-07-13 23:48:02 +0900, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
> But please image the case where old cluster has table which is very
> large, read-only and vacuum freeze is done.
> In this case, the all-frozen bit of such table in new cluster will not
> set, unless we do vacuum freeze again.
> The information of all-frozen of such table is lacked.
So what? That's the situation today… Yes, it'll trigger a
anti-wraparound vacuum at some later point, after that they map bits
will be set.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Laurent Laborde | 2015-07-13 15:11:13 | Re: dead assignment src/bin/scripts/print.c line 421 |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2015-07-13 15:05:00 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |