Re: CLUSTER FREEZE

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <munro(at)ip9(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CLUSTER FREEZE
Date: 2013-10-25 06:12:07
Message-ID: 20131025061207.GB1197176@alap2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2013-10-24 17:17:22 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/24/2013 04:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> >> On 10/23/2013 09:58 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >>> I wonder why anyone would like to freeze during CLUSTER command when
> >>> they already have separate way (VACUUM FREEZE) to achieve it, do you
> >>> know or can think of any case where user wants to do it along with
> >>> Cluster command?
> >>
> >> "If I'm rewriting the table anyway, let's freeze it".
> >>
> >> Otherwise, you have to write the same pages twice, if both CLUSTER and
> >> FREEZE are required.
> >
> > I wonder if we should go so far as to make this the default behavior,
> > instead of just making it an option.
>
> +1 from me. Can you think of a reason you *wouldn't* want to freeze?

It makes content from the future appear when you start using the
relation in a query/session with an older snapshot. Currently CLUSTER is
safe against that.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2013-10-25 06:16:30 Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2013-10-25 05:31:39 Re: Regress tests to improve the function coverage of schemacmds and user and tablespace files