On 2014-02-11 13:41:46 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Wait longer for what? Anti-xid-wraparound vacuum?
Yes. > Is using VACUUM for these cases documented? Should it be? No idea, it seems to be part of at least part of the folkloric knowledge, from what I see at clients. > > I am not saying it shouldn't be improved, I just don't see the point of > > bringing it up while everyone is busy with the last CF and claiming it > > is unusable and that stating that it is surprisising that nobody really > > cares. > Well, I brought it up in September too. My point was not that it is a > new issue but that it has been such an ignored issue for two years. I > am not asking for a fix, but right now we don't even have a plan on how > to improve this. Coming up with a plan for this takes time and discussion, not something we seem to have aplenty of atm. And even if were to agree on a plan right now, we wouldn't incorporate it into 9.4, so what's the point of bringing it up now? > I still don't see how this is FUD, and you have not explained it to me. > This is a known limitation for two years, not documented (?), and with > no TODO item and no plan on how to improve it. Do you want to declare > such cases FUD and just ignore them? I don't see how that moves us > forward. Claiming something doesn't work while it just has manageable usability issues doesn't strike me as a reasonable starting point. If it bugs somebody enough to come up with a rough proposal it will get fixed... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers