Re: Minimally avoiding Transaction Wraparound in VLDBs
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Minimally avoiding Transaction Wraparound in VLDBs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1125566996.3956.150.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Minimally avoiding Transaction Wraparound in VLDBs (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Minimally avoiding Transaction Wraparound in VLDBs
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 22:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 19:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> If you don't remove any tuples, > >> you don't scan the indexes anyway IIRC. > > > No. Even if you remove *zero* tuples, an index is still scanned twice. > > Once to not delete the rows and once to not delete the pages. > > Yeah? Well, that could probably be improved with a less intrusive fix, > that is, one that does it automatically instead of involving the user. > > I really really do not like proposals to introduce still another kind > of VACUUM. We have too many already; any casual glance through the > archives will show that most PG users don't have a grip on when to use > VACUUM FULL vs VACUUM. Throwing in some more types will make that > problem exponentially worse. I'll post my proposal for changing that, so we can see the two alternatives. I'm easy either way at the moment. Best Regards, Simon Riggs
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: