Re: Vacuum Vs Vacuum Full

From: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Adrian Klaver <aklaver(at)comcast(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Shaw <redsmurfau(at)msn(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Vacuum Vs Vacuum Full
Date: 2008-08-05 16:54:36
Message-ID: 489885CC.4020406@zeut.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
>> BTW, what version of PostgreSQL is this? Database-wide vacuum is no
>> longer required for XID wraparound issues. I think this was an 8.3
>> change but might have happened in 8.2, I don't remember.
>
> 8.2. But you could still get that message, even in CVS HEAD, if
> autovacuum was failing to complete for some reason (and had been
> failing for quite a long time).

Should that message to updated since a database-wide vacuum is no longer
required, or are you saying that the message is still relevant is some
corner cases?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-08-05 17:15:35 Re: Vacuum Vs Vacuum Full
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-08-05 16:36:48 Re: Vacuum Vs Vacuum Full