| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amin Abdulghani <amin(at)quantiva(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Transaction Id wraparounds |
| Date: | 2002-09-05 16:08:04 |
| Message-ID: | 18077.1031242084@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Amin Abdulghani <amin(at)quantiva(dot)com> writes:
> From the administrator's guide I understand a
> system wide VACUUM or VACUUM FREEZE would perform the job
> but for a large database (>10GB and growing) this takes a
> long time to run.
So? You don't have to do it often, and it doesn't lock your
tables against normal operations ... so I don't really see the
objection. I would not bother with FREEZE unless you are trying
to make a template database.
> what should be the criteria to check when this issue needs
> to be addressed.
When age(datfrozenxid) approaches 2 billion, it's time. I believe
vacuum will start warning you well before that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-05 16:23:08 | Re: Problem with restoring dump (may be tsearch-related) |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2002-09-05 16:03:55 | Re: Transaction Id wraparounds |