Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> >
> > It's been around, but is it trusted? I for one do not trust it. See
> > for example
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoaWoU+BpBG4nwz1L
> > GkmdsbL6_Hm9r8jNqte-5VRDLsrkQ@mail.gmail.com
>
> Needs some discussion. Has anyone actually reported corruption related to
> this? I don't doubt the opinion, but I do wonder why I have never seen
> reports of corruption related to this when people have readily reported
> such things in years past about pg_repack.
Maybe the nature of the corruption caused is different. It took months
of running large databases on production for corruption to become
apparent from multixact bugs, for example. Or maybe because the
relfrozenxid is fixed by other activity in the system, any bugs are
masked -- but that you could get in trouble if autovacuum is disabled,
perhaps. Or maybe it's masked even in that case, since autovacuum
observes that the table has a very old frozenxid and runs a forced
vacuum on that table anyway.
> If it (apparently) works so well in practice for so many companies,
> but has this bug, why not leverage what they have done [...] ?
What have they done?
> [...] and fix its bugs when it serves such an important function? The
> extension serves a huge need on many fronts.
It's not PGDG's tool, so these are not "our" bugs to fix. Though it's
pretty clear that we need *something* to cover those needs ... but
nothing has been submitted to commitfests.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services