Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables
Date: 2013-01-25 15:49:25
Message-ID: 5102A985.3010803@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 1/25/13 10:29 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> And I do want to get something back-patchable.

Autovacuum has existed for N years and nobody complained about this
until just now, so I don't see a strong justification for backpatching.

Or is this a regression from an earlier release?

In general, I think we should backpatch less.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bernd Helmle 2013-01-25 15:49:48 Re: Hanging backends and possible index corruption
Previous Message Robert Haas 2013-01-25 15:44:31 Re: [PATCH 1/3] Fix x + y < x overflow checks