Re: Autovacuum integration patch

TODO item?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 01:00:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> No, you're wrong. VACUUMing of individual tables is perfectly good
> > >> enough as far as XID wrap protection goes, it's just that we chose to
> > >> track whether it had been done at the database level. If we tracked it
> > >> in, say, a new pg_class column then in principle you could protect
> > >> against XID wrap with only table-at-a-time VACUUMs.
> >
> > > Good, I'm glad I'm wrong on this. This will be another nice advantage
> > > of autovacuum then and should be fairly easy to do. Any thoughts on
> > > this being a change we can get in for 8.1?
> >
> > I'd say this is probably a tad too late --- there's a fair amount of
> > code change that would be needed, none of which has been written, and
> > we are past the feature-freeze deadline for new code.
>
> Right. I've written a small, non-intrusive patch that handles the Xid
> wraparound just as pg_autovacuum used to, checking the Xid from
> pg_database.
>
> --
> Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>)
> "Hay quien adquiere la mala costumbre de ser infeliz" (M. A. Evans)
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073