Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum?
Date: 2022-02-16 18:18:46
Message-ID: 20220216181846.4syh3mnq5qzjrdiz@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2022-02-16 10:14:19 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Absolutely -- couldn't agree more. Do you think it's worth targeting
> 14 here, or just HEAD?

I'd go for HEAD first, but wouldn't protest against 14.

> I'm pretty sure that some people believe that wraparound can cause
> actual data corruption

Well, historically they're not wrong. And we've enough things stored in 32bit
counters that I'd be surprised if we didn't have more wraparound issues. Of
course that's not related to anti-wrap vacuums...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-02-16 18:24:41 Re: initdb / bootstrap design
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2022-02-16 18:14:19 Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum?