| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: How to avoid transaction ID wrap |
| Date: | 2006-06-08 16:09:10 |
| Message-ID: | 28467.1149782950@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> writes:
> If the aim is to *only* avoid transaction wraparound, then maybe we
> could introduce VACUUM FREEZE ONLY; which never removes any old tuples,
> but instead just marks them by setting xmin=xmax for them, in addition
> to its freezing of live-and-visible-to-all tuples.
> This would avoid touching indexes at all and may well be what is desired
> for tables with only very little updates/deletes.
Seems like useless complexity. If there are so few dead tuples that you
can afford to not reclaim them, then there are so few that reclaiming
them isn't really going to cost much either ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-06-08 16:12:09 | Re: Type of bare text strings |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-06-08 16:00:30 | Re: That EXPLAIN ANALYZE patch still needs work |