Re: VACUUM and transaction ID wraparound

On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 10:11:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> writes:
> > On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 02:34:19PM +1000, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> >> I beleive they are referring to the difference between VACUUM and VACUUM
> >> FULL. The former is faster and doesn't lock tables, but the latter is
> >> required to solve transaction wraparound.
>
> > It is? I didn't think VACUUM FULL was ever required.
>
> Either one will get the job done as far as avoiding wraparound goes.
> If there's someplace in the docs that seems to you to give a different
> impression, please tell me where.

Sorry, must be my memory. I remember something about requiring a VACUUM FULL
at least once every two billion transactions. I must have misremembered,
sorry.
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> "the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or
> religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.
> Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
> - Samuel P. Huntington