From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: vacuumdb --freeze |
Date: | 2009-02-19 17:39:57 |
Message-ID: | 200902191739.n1JHdvC01128@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at> writes:
> > I am still answering here because my question was related to upgrade.
> > I think you need to turn off autovacuum before freezing to avoid a later analyze
> > that unfreezes pg_class (or the stats table).
>
> vacuum analyze doesn't unfreeze pg_class. It could create unfrozen
> tuples in pg_statistic, perhaps, but we could easily fix that by
> truncating pg_statistic afterwards (its not like there will be useful
> data there...)
I have added --analyze to the vacuumdb command and documented its
purpose.
> The end goal is going to be to have all this work happen in a standalone
> backend, rather than risk firing up the postmaster while the database is
> in an unstable state. So I would counsel spending as little effort as
> possible on filing off rough edges that are related to the
> using-a-postmaster scenario.
Any idea how to do that? Would we have to leave the libpq API?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | decibel | 2009-02-19 17:49:29 | Knuth "nested parens" picture |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-19 17:24:36 | Re: vacuumdb --freeze |