Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2013-02-01 19:24:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> And as for that, it's been pretty clear for awhile that allowing
>> vacuum_defer_cleanup_age to change on the fly was a bad idea we'd
>> eventually have to undo. The day of reckoning has arrived: it needs
>> to be PGC_POSTMASTER.
> ISTM that the original problem can still occur, even after Simon's
> commit.
> 1) start with -c vacuum_defer_cleanup_age=0
> 2) autovacuum vacuums "test";
> 3) restart with -c vacuum_defer_cleanup_age=10000
> 4) autovacuum vacuums "test"'s toast table;
> should result in about the same ERROR, shouldn't it?
Hm ... yeah, you're right. So that's still not bulletproof.
> Given that there seemingly isn't yet a way to fix that people agree on
> and that it "only" result in a transient error I think the fix for this
> should be pushed after the next point release.
Agreed, we can let this go until we have a more complete solution.
Simon, would you revert the vacuum_defer_cleanup_age changes?
We should wait till we have a complete fix before forcing that
redefinition on users.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
