From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Russell Smith" <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Idea for getting rid of VACUUM FREEZE on cold pages |
Date: | 2010-06-04 16:28:01 |
Message-ID: | 19374.1275668881@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> ... my perspective is that it would be A Good Thing if it could
> just be turned on when needed. If you have recurring bug that can
> be arranged, but in those cases you have other options; so I'm
> assuming you want this kept because it is primarily of forensic
> value after a non-repeatable bug has munged something?
Yeah, that's exactly the problem. When you realize you need it,
it's too late.
> The best thought I've had so far
> is that if someone kept WAL files long enough the evidence might be
> in there somewhere....
Hm, that is an excellent point. The WAL trace would actually be a lot
superior in terms of being able to figure out what went wrong. But
I don't quite see how we tell people "either keep xmin or keep your
old WAL". Also, for production sites the amount of WAL you'd have to
hang onto seems a bit daunting. Other problems are the cost of shipping
it to a developer, and the impracticality of sanitizing private data in
it before you show it to somebody.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-06-04 16:38:16 | Re: Idea for getting rid of VACUUM FREEZE on cold pages |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-06-04 16:23:33 | Re: Idea for getting rid of VACUUM FREEZE on cold pages |