Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL
Date: 2010-01-30 20:17:45
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> The last item on my list before close is making VACUUM FULL and Hot
> Standby play nicely together.

> The options to do this were and still are:

> (1) Add WAL messages for non-transactional relcache invalidations
> (2) Allow system relations to be cluster-ed/vacuum full-ed.

> (1) was how we did it originally and I believe it worked without
> problem. We saw the opportunity to do (2) and it has been worth
> exploring.

Refresh my memory on why (1) lets us avoid fixing (2)?  It sounds
like a kluge at best ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-01-30 20:31:15
Subject: Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-01-30 19:30:31
Subject: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group