| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl>, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum integration patch |
| Date: | 2005-07-05 17:00:50 |
| Message-ID: | 23960.1120582850@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)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 pg_class column then in principle you could protect
>> against XID wrap with only table-at-a-time VACUUMs.
> Good, I'm glad I'm wrong on this. This will be another nice advantage
> of autovacuum then and should be fairly easy to do. Any thoughts on
> this being a change we can get in for 8.1?
I'd say this is probably a tad too late --- there's a fair amount of
code change that would be needed, none of which has been written, and
we are past the feature-freeze deadline for new code.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-07-05 17:11:53 | Re: Autovacuum integration patch |
| Previous Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2005-07-05 16:37:08 | Re: Autovacuum integration patch |