On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Stephen Frost wrote: > -- Start of PGP signed section. >> bricklen, >> >> * bricklen (brick...@gmail.com) wrote: >> > Now, is this safe to run against my production database? >> >> Yes, with a few caveats. One recommendation is to also increase >> autovacuum_freeze_max_age to 500000000 (500m), which will hopefully >> prevent autovacuum from 'butting in' and causing issues during the >> process. Also, a database-wide 'VACUUM FREEZE;' should be lower-risk, >> if you can afford it (it will cause a lot of i/o on the system). The >> per-table 'VACUUM FREEZE <table>;' that the script does can end up >> removing clog files prematurely. >> >> > Anyone have any suggestions or changes before I commit myself to this >> > course of action? >> >> If you run into problems, and perhaps even before starting, you may want >> to pop in to #postgresql on irc.freenode.net, there are people there who >> can help you with this process who are very familiar with PG. > > Stephen is 100% correct and we have updated the wiki to explain recovery > details: > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/20110408pg_upgrade_fix >
Thanks guys, I really appreciate your help. For the vacuum freeze, you say database-wide, should I run vacuumdb -a -v -F ? Will freezing the other tables in the cluster help (not sure how that works with template0/1 databases?) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
