| From: | Florian Pflug <fgp(dot)phlo(dot)org(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE TABLE, load and freezing |
| Date: | 2008-02-28 13:42:49 |
| Message-ID: | 47C6BA59.2030505@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
>> Without this, very large read-only tables would require one round of
>> complete freezing if there are lot of transactional activities in the other parts
>> of the database. And when that happens, it would generate lots of unnecessary
>> IOs on these large tables.
>
> To make things worse, the freezing day comes at once because the first restore
> is done in a single or near transactions; The wraparound timings of many
> tables are aligned at the same time. Freezing copy will be the solution.
Hm.. Couldn't we eliminate that particular concern easily by adding some
randomness to the freeze_age?
regards, Florian Pflug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jorgen Austvik - Sun Norway | 2008-02-28 13:45:05 | Re: Buildfarm member gypsy_moth seems not to like alignment patch |
| Previous Message | Jorgen Austvik - Sun Norway | 2008-02-28 13:36:17 | Re: Buildfarm member gypsy_moth seems not to like alignment patch |