Re: Help me recovering data
От | Matthew T. O'Connor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Help me recovering data |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 42160BA6.20401@zeut.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Help me recovering data (Russell Smith <mr-russ@pws.com.au>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Russell Smith wrote: >On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 04:38 pm, Kevin Brown wrote: > > >>Tom Lane wrote: >> >> >>> No, the entire point of this discussion is to whup the DBA upside the >>> >>>head with a big enough cluestick to get him to install autovacuum. >>> >>>Once autovacuum is default, it won't matter anymore. >>> >>> >>I have a concern about this that I hope is just based on some >>misunderstanding on my part. >> >>My concern is: suppose that a database is modified extremely >>infrequently? So infrequently, in fact, that over a billion read >>transactions occur before the next write transaction. Once that write >>transaction occurs, you're hosed, right? Autovacuum won't catch this >>because it takes action based on the write activity that occurs in the >>tables. >> >>So: will autovacuum be coded to explicitly look for transaction >>wraparound, or to automatically vacuum every N number of transactions >>(e.g., 500 million)? >> >> >autovacuum already checks for both Transaction wraparound, and table updates. >It vacuums individual tables as they need it, from a free space/recovery point of view. > >It also does checks to ensure that no database is nearing transaction wraparound, if it >is, it initiates a database wide vacuum to resolve that issue. > Right, the check that autovacuum does for wraparound is totally separate from the monitoring of inserts updates and deletes.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: