From: | Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Help me recovering data |
Date: | 2005-02-18 11:00:53 |
Message-ID: | 200502182200.53550.mr-russ@pws.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 04:38 pm, Kevin Brown wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> writes:
> > > BTW, why not do an automatic vacuum instead of shutdown ? At least the
> > > DB do not stop working untill someone study what the problem is and
> > > how solve it.
> >
> > No, the entire point of this discussion is to whup the DBA upside the
> > head with a big enough cluestick to get him to install autovacuum.
> >
> > Once autovacuum is default, it won't matter anymore.
>
> I have a concern about this that I hope is just based on some
> misunderstanding on my part.
>
> My concern is: suppose that a database is modified extremely
> infrequently? So infrequently, in fact, that over a billion read
> transactions occur before the next write transaction. Once that write
> transaction occurs, you're hosed, right? Autovacuum won't catch this
> because it takes action based on the write activity that occurs in the
> tables.
>
> So: will autovacuum be coded to explicitly look for transaction
> wraparound, or to automatically vacuum every N number of transactions
> (e.g., 500 million)?
>
autovacuum already checks for both Transaction wraparound, and table updates.
It vacuums individual tables as they need it, from a free space/recovery point of view.
It also does checks to ensure that no database is nearing transaction wraparound, if it
is, it initiates a database wide vacuum to resolve that issue.
Regards
Russell Smith
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Russell Smith | 2005-02-18 11:02:03 | Re: Help me recovering data |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2005-02-18 10:33:56 | Re: win32 performance - fsync question |