Re: Summary of plans to avoid the annoyance of Freezing

On 10 August 2015 at 07:14, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > If 5) fails to bring a workable solution by the Jan 2016 CF then we
> commit
> > 2) instead.
>
> Is there actually a conflict there? I didn't think so.
>

I didn't explain myself fully, thank you for asking.

Having a freeze map would be wholly unnecessary if we don't ever need to
freeze whole tables again. Freezing would still be needed on individual
blocks where an old row has been updated or deleted; a freeze map would not
help there either.

So there is no conflict, but options 2) and 3) are completely redundant if
we go for 5). After investigation, I now think 5) is achievable in 9.6, but
if I am wrong for whatever reason, we have 2) as a backstop.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services