Re: Idea for getting rid of VACUUM FREEZE on cold pages

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Russell Smith" <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Idea for getting rid of VACUUM FREEZE on cold pages
Date: 2010-06-04 16:28:01
Message-ID: 19374.1275668881@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> ... my perspective is that it would be A Good Thing if it could
> just be turned on when needed. If you have recurring bug that can
> be arranged, but in those cases you have other options; so I'm
> assuming you want this kept because it is primarily of forensic
> value after a non-repeatable bug has munged something?

Yeah, that's exactly the problem. When you realize you need it,
it's too late.

> The best thought I've had so far
> is that if someone kept WAL files long enough the evidence might be
> in there somewhere....

Hm, that is an excellent point. The WAL trace would actually be a lot
superior in terms of being able to figure out what went wrong. But
I don't quite see how we tell people "either keep xmin or keep your
old WAL". Also, for production sites the amount of WAL you'd have to
hang onto seems a bit daunting. Other problems are the cost of shipping
it to a developer, and the impracticality of sanitizing private data in
it before you show it to somebody.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2010-06-04 16:38:16 Re: Idea for getting rid of VACUUM FREEZE on cold pages
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2010-06-04 16:23:33 Re: Idea for getting rid of VACUUM FREEZE on cold pages