From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: vacuumdb --freeze |
Date: | 2009-02-19 17:24:36 |
Message-ID: | 9858.1235064276@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at> writes:
> I am still answering here because my question was related to upgrade.
> I think you need to turn off autovacuum before freezing to avoid a later analyze
> that unfreezes pg_class (or the stats table).
vacuum analyze doesn't unfreeze pg_class. It could create unfrozen
tuples in pg_statistic, perhaps, but we could easily fix that by
truncating pg_statistic afterwards (its not like there will be useful
data there...)
The end goal is going to be to have all this work happen in a standalone
backend, rather than risk firing up the postmaster while the database is
in an unstable state. So I would counsel spending as little effort as
possible on filing off rough edges that are related to the
using-a-postmaster scenario.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-02-19 17:39:57 | Re: vacuumdb --freeze |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT | 2009-02-19 17:11:56 | Re: vacuumdb --freeze |