Re: vacuumdb --freeze

From: Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: vacuumdb --freeze
Date: 2009-02-18 09:28:34
Message-ID: 6DAFE8F5425AB84DB3FCA4537D829A561CF6629C49@M0164.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> > > I would like to add a --freeze parameter to vacuumdb for use by the
> > > binary upgrade utility, and for symmetry with the existing VACUUM
> > > options; patch attached.
> >
> > Exactly what do you think the upgrade utility is going to do with it?
> > Surely not a database-wide VACUUM FREEZE, if we are hoping that upgrade
> > is going to be fast.
> >
> > As far as I can see this is a solution looking for a problem.
>
> I didn't go into the use-case. The way pg_migrator works is to copy the
> _schema_ from the old database and load it into the new database. We
> then need to run vacuum freeze on the schema-only databases because we
> then move pg_clog from the old database to the new one; so, it is
> needed, and it will not take long to run.

My first impulse was the same as Tom's, thanks for the explanation.

To the filled database case:

Would it make sense to enhance --table to allow wildcards and remove the
"cannot vacuum a specific table in all databases" check ?

One more question I have though is:
How do you make sure noone (e.g. autovacuum analyze)
unfreezes tuples after the vacuum freeze ?

Andreas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2009-02-18 09:54:21 Re: vacuumdb --freeze
Previous Message BogDan Vatra 2009-02-18 09:06:52 Re: SE-PostgreSQL and row level security