Re: [Feature Request] INSERT FROZEN to Optimize Large Cold Data Imports and Migrations

From: Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: bokanist(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Feature Request] INSERT FROZEN to Optimize Large Cold Data Imports and Migrations
Date: 2025-02-18 14:57:18
Message-ID: CAKAnmmKzmTQTKXQ62U0s3tw-bBL3wUqY5UWqNd4B2eiVyvTh5g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 9:17 AM Sébastien <bokanist(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Sorry it won't work. It just delays the problem. But still the freeze
> procedure must rewrite all pages.
>

Actually, a 64-bit transaction ID allows for quite a "delay" - like
hundreds of millions of years at your current rate. :)

(Yes, there are other reasons to vacuum, and other limits and problems
would arise. You'd have 99 problems, but a vacuum freeze ain't one.)

Cheers,
Greg

--
Crunchy Data - https://www.crunchydata.com
Enterprise Postgres Software Products & Tech Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2025-02-18 14:57:42 Re: New "single" COPY format
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2025-02-18 14:53:53 Re: Bug in nbtree SAOP scans with non-required arrays, truncated high key