| From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)" <dba-sql(at)ultimeth(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: VACUUM and transaction ID wraparound |
| Date: | 2003-05-22 14:50:34 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0305220848490.23585-100000@css120.ihs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 21 May 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 02:34:19PM +1000, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>
> > I beleive they are referring to the difference between VACUUM and VACUUM
> > FULL. The former is faster and doesn't lock tables, but the latter is
> > required to solve transaction wraparound.
>
> It is? I didn't think VACUUM FULL was ever required.
I'm not sure if it's vacuum full or vacuum, but I do know you have to
vacuum ALL the tables in ALL your databases to prevent wrap around.
Full or not, I'm not really sure. But I run fulls every night anyway.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-05-22 14:53:10 | Re: SELECT DISTINCT ON bug? |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-05-22 14:46:01 | Re: caching query results |