| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and materialized views |
| Date: | 2018-02-20 21:46:48 |
| Message-ID: | 24838.1519163208@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> (2) independently of that, it sounds like REFRESH
>> MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY is somehow preventing advancement of the
>> matview's relfrozenxid in the source DB.
> Not necessarily. I have vacuum_table_freeze_max_age set to 350M, so
> it's not yet due for freezing.
Perhaps, but it seems pretty suggestive that all of the non-concurrently
refreshed matviews have relfrozenxid significantly newer than all of
the concurrently refreshed ones. Maybe that's just coincidence, or a
predictable outcome of your usage pattern, but I think it needs
explaining.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-02-20 21:54:20 | Re: pg_upgrade and materialized views |
| Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2018-02-20 21:44:53 | Re: pg_upgrade and materialized views |