| From: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | sthomas(at)peak6(dot)com |
| Cc: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>, Igor Chudov <ichudov(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB |
| Date: | 2011-09-12 20:19:29 |
| Message-ID: | CABRT9RBMcVaevvJXn-7iThNDLCD_8aQZ+n8N4LUocX14DtvHEw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 23:04, Shaun Thomas <sthomas(at)peak6(dot)com> wrote:
> I was alluding to the fact that if a DBA had his system running for a week
> at our transaction level, and PG didn't have forced auto vacuum, and their
> maintenance lapsed even slightly, they could end up with a corrupt database.
It doesn't actually corrupt your database. If you manage to hit the
wraparound age, PostgreSQL disallows new connections and tells you to
run a VACUUM from a standalone backend. (But that should never happen
due to the forced vacuum freeze processes)
Regards,
Marti
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2011-09-12 20:44:44 | Re: Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB |
| Previous Message | Shaun Thomas | 2011-09-12 20:04:40 | Re: Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB |