Tom Lane wrote:
Matthew T. O'Connor matthew@zeut.net writes:
The current implementation of XID wraparound requires that the vacuum
command be run against the entire database, you can not run it on a per
table basis and have it work. At least that is my understanding,
No, you're
Matthew T. O'Connor matthew@zeut.net writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
No, you're wrong. VACUUMing of individual tables is perfectly good
enough as far as XID wrap protection goes, it's just that we chose to
track whether it had been done at the database level. If we tracked it
in, say, a new
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 01:00:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Matthew T. O'Connor matthew@zeut.net writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
No, you're wrong. VACUUMing of individual tables is perfectly good
enough as far as XID wrap protection goes, it's just that we chose to
track whether it had been done
TODO item?
---
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 01:00:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Matthew T. O'Connor matthew@zeut.net writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
No, you're wrong. VACUUMing of individual tables is
I think so. Something like: Improve autovacuum xid wraparound detection
by moving to a pertable solution rather than per database.
Matt
Bruce Momjian wrote:
TODO item?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once
XID wraparound: The patch as submitted doesn't handle XID wraparound
issues. The old contrib autovacuum would do an XID wraparound check as
it's 1st operation upon connecting to a database. If XID wraparound was
looks like it's going to be a problem soon, then the whole database
would be
Hackers,
(Resend, like fifth time or so. bzip2'ing the patch for luck.)
Here is a first cut at autovacuum integration. Please have a look at
it. Note that this patch automatically creates three new files:
src/backend/postmaster/autovacuum.c
src/include/catalog/pg_autovacuum.h
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
There are several things that are painfully evident with this thing on:
- TRUNCATE does not update stats. It should send a stat message to
which we can react.
How important is this really? The stats from before the truncate might
be ok, especially since they
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Hackers,
Here is a first cut at autovacuum integration. Please have a look at
it. Note that this patch automatically creates three new files:
Couple more things that I didn't think about while we were talking about
this the other day.
XID wraparound: The patch
Matthew, your reply was exactly the type of reply I would have made in
your situation. Your arguments are clear and indisputable.
Due to the many large patches the we had to process during this release,
we serialized their review. However, I made promises to developers that
their patches would
Tom Lane wrote:
You're headed in the right direction, but I'm afraid we're running out
of time. The core committee has chewed this over and agreed that we
can't postpone beta for the amount of time we think it will take to make
this patch committable. So we're going to hold it over for the 8.1
Tom Lane wrote:
Matthew T. O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well I didn't get out of the office as early as I had hoped, and I have
stayed up longer than I had planned, but I have a patch that addresses
many of the issues raised by Tom. Please take a look at let me know if
I'm heading in the
Matthew T. O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, I know people are eager for 8.0, but given that our release cycle
is so long, and that by everyones estimates we are at least 3 months
away from a release, what is the hurry for beta?
If I thought we were just a day or two away from having a
13 matches
Mail list logo
