| From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | CSN <cool_screen_name90001(at)yahoo(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum strategy |
| Date: | 2002-11-26 15:56:13 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0211260854510.8844-100000@css120.ihs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> "scott.marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:
> > Also, full vacuums are required every so often to keep the transaction id
> > from rolling over.
>
> Not so; a plain vacuum is fine for that. The critical point is that
> *every* table in *every* database has to be vacuumed (plain or full)
> at least once every billion transactions or so.
Really? Sorry for the misiniformation. I could have sworn that I read it
on this or the hackers mailing list that only full vacuums could reset the
transaction counter.
Thanks for the catch.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adam Witney | 2002-11-26 16:10:32 | Inheritance question |
| Previous Message | Chris Gamache | 2002-11-26 15:49:34 | eXtreme PostgreSQL using system catalogs (was Turning off triggers ?) |