On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 10/22/15 6:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>
>> Jim Nasby wrote:
>>
>>> That would be the minimal-impact version, yes. But I suspect if we went
>>> through the trouble to do that, it would be just as easy to attempt
On 10/22/15 6:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Jim Nasby wrote:
That would be the minimal-impact version, yes. But I suspect if we went
through the trouble to do that, it would be just as easy to attempt the
freeze regardless of what scan_all is set to.
You mean if !scan_all we conditional-get
On 10/21/15 3:14 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Jim Nasby wrote:
While warning a client that just did a Slony-based version upgrade to make
sure to freeze the new database, it occurred to me that it should be safe to
freeze without the cleanup lock. This is interesting because it would allow
a
Jim Nasby wrote:
> That would be the minimal-impact version, yes. But I suspect if we went
> through the trouble to do that, it would be just as easy to attempt the
> freeze regardless of what scan_all is set to.
You mean if !scan_all we conditional-get the cleanup lock, if we get it
then prune,
While warning a client that just did a Slony-based version upgrade to
make sure to freeze the new database, it occurred to me that it should
be safe to freeze without the cleanup lock. This is interesting because
it would allow a scan_all vacuum to do it's job without blocking on the
cleanup
Jim Nasby writes:
> While warning a client that just did a Slony-based version upgrade to
> make sure to freeze the new database, it occurred to me that it should
> be safe to freeze without the cleanup lock.
What's your argument for that being safe?
On October 21, 2015 9:47:45 PM GMT+02:00, Tom Lane wrote:
>Jim Nasby writes:
>> While warning a client that just did a Slony-based version upgrade to
>
>> make sure to freeze the new database, it occurred to me that it
>should
>> be safe to freeze
Jim Nasby wrote:
> While warning a client that just did a Slony-based version upgrade to make
> sure to freeze the new database, it occurred to me that it should be safe to
> freeze without the cleanup lock. This is interesting because it would allow
> a scan_all vacuum to do it's job without