Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? )
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20090813215804.GV5909@alvh.no-ip.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>) |
Ответы |
[PERFORM] Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is
vacuum_freeze_min_age100m? )
Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) Re: [PERFORM] Re: freezing tuples ( was: Why is vacuum_freeze_min_age 100m? ) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis wrote: > Why aren't we more opportunistic about freezing tuples? For instance, if > we already have a dirty buffer in cache, we should be more aggressive > about freezing those tuples than freezing tuples on disk. The most widely cited reason is that you lose forensics data. Although they are increasingly rare, there are still situations in which the heap tuple machinery messes up and the xmin/xmax/etc fields of the tuple are the best/only way to find out what happened and thus fix the bug. If you freeze early, there's just no way to know. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: