Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
| От | Antonin Houska |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 5367.1770017148@localhost обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] (Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com> wrote: > > The 0006 part needs more work (definitely beyond PG 19). > > This is sad, because if you are in a situation then you need REPACK - pinning the horizon for too long may just finishyour DB.... > And also, even with 0006 we still need to build indexes, which might pin it for long (even duration caused by a singleindex). I suppose "to finish database" refers to XID wraparound - a problem that you keep mentioning again and again. (Yes, the wraparound is a problem, but not exactly a "final" state of the database.) As far as I know, it's not uncommon for DBAs to use the pg_repack extension, and this extension also restricts the progress of the VACUUM xmin horizon. Are you sure that users do complain about having ended up in the XID wraparound situation? I don't really pay attention to pg_repack, but I do pay quite some attention to the pg_squeeze extension (which I wrote and maintain). I recall that some users were surprised by the amount of disk space consumed (as the earlier versions of pg_squeeze were "too lazy" about WAL decoding), but I do not recall a single complaint about pg_squeeze causing the XID wraparound situation. -- Antonin Houska Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: