Re: Minimally avoiding Transaction Wraparound in VLDBs

From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Minimally avoiding Transaction Wraparound in VLDBs
Date: 2005-09-01 02:40:51
Message-ID: 43166A33.5@familyhealth.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I really really do not like proposals to introduce still another kind
> of VACUUM. We have too many already; any casual glance through the
> archives will show that most PG users don't have a grip on when to use
> VACUUM FULL vs VACUUM. Throwing in some more types will make that
> problem exponentially worse.

Yes, but if they're all under the control of autovacuum, then users
don't have to worry...

Chris

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-09-01 02:47:44 Re: Remove xmin and cmin from frozen tuples
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2005-09-01 02:30:31 Re: Call for 7.5 feature completion