| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL segments pile up during standalone mode |
| Date: | 2011-03-03 15:36:10 |
| Message-ID: | 7926.1299166570@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I admit I have no idea why these guys seem to run into wraparound
> problems so much.
> On the other hand, I'm not sure that it would work to try to checkpoint
> "during" vacuum, because the backend is in a transaction. Maybe it
> would work to force a checkpoint after each command, and between tables
> in a multi-table vacuum (which is presumably a common thing to do in a
> standalone backend) or something like that?
I really don't care for the idea of standalone mode doing *anything*
the user didn't explicitly tell it to. In its role as a disaster
recovery tool, that's just a recipe for shooting yourself in the foot.
Perhaps this problem would be adequately addressed by documentation,
ie suggest that when vacuuming very large tables in standalone mode,
you should issue CHECKPOINT after each one.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-03 15:36:18 | Re: WAL segments pile up during standalone mode |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-03-03 15:31:14 | Re: Quick Extensions Question |