From: | "Ed L(dot)" <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: large table vacuum issues |
Date: | 2008-01-05 01:41:03 |
Message-ID: | 200801041841.04203.pgsql@bluepolka.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Friday 04 January 2008 6:21 pm, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2008 6:38 PM, Ed L. <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net> wrote:
> > We need some advice on how to handle some large table
> > autovacuum issues. One of our 8.1.2
>
> First of all, update your 8.1 install to 8.1.10. Failing to
> keep up with bug fixes is negligent. who knows, you might be
> getting bitten by a bug that was fixed between 8.1.2 and
> 8.1.10
Could be. But like you said, who knows. In some environments,
downtime for upgrading costs money (and more), too, sometimes
even enough to make it "negligent" to take downtime to keep up
with bug fixes (and of course, the new bugs) which may or may
not be a factor at hand. While the time required to restart a
DB may be neglible, there are often upstream/downstream
dependencies that greatly expand the actual downtime for the
customer. How much would downtime need to cost before you
thought it negligent to upgrade immediately? It's a tradeoff,
not well-supported by simple pronouncements, one the customer
and provider are best qualified to make.
Ed
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher M Siwy | 2008-01-05 01:42:56 | Cannot connect to PgPool |
Previous Message | Ed L. | 2008-01-05 01:29:09 | Re: large table vacuum issues |