| From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_autovacuum and VACUUM FREEZE |
| Date: | 2003-10-16 14:16:42 |
| Message-ID: | 1066313801.26276.4.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> The vacuum man page says, "FREEZE is not recommnded for routine use".
> That was enough to keep me away. However if vacuum freeze was
> considerably lighter than normal database wide vacuums then there might
> be an advantage to using it. Especially since when pg_autovaccum
> decides it's time to deal with xid wraparound, it does it to all the
> databases, which could a several hours of vacuum on large clusters.
Each database has it's own last xid. Just because one database is about
to go over the limit doesn't mean they all are. Why don't you treat
each database independently in this regard (then they wouldn't
necessarily all be kicked off at once).
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-16 14:28:18 | Re: Still a few flaws in configure's default CFLAGS |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-16 14:13:42 | Re: pg_autovacuum and VACUUM FREEZE |