Re: vacuum_freeze_table_age for 9.3.2
От | Andy Colson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: vacuum_freeze_table_age for 9.3.2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 52A0BC8B.70308@squeakycode.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: vacuum_freeze_table_age for 9.3.2 (Giuseppe Broccolo <giuseppe.broccolo@2ndquadrant.it>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On 12/5/2013 11:29 AM, Giuseppe Broccolo wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > Il 05/12/2013 17:16, Andy Colson ha scritto: >> The docs say vacuum, but the param is vacuum_freeze_table_age, so >> do I need to "vacuum freeze" all the tables, or is vacuum enough? >> >> Also, will "set vacuum_freeze_table_age = 0; vacuum freeze;" work, >> or do I need to modify the postgresql.conf and reload? > > Setting vacuum_freeze_table_age to 0 forces VACUUM to always scan all > pages, effectively ignoring the visibility map. In this way a scan of > the whole table is done, ensuring all old XIDs are replaced by FrozenXID. > > vacuum_freeze_table_age is a parameter with context 'user', meaning > that you can set it during a session and run a "vacuum freeze" with > the modified setting. > > Giuseppe. I gather, then, that vacuum alone is enough. It'll scan the entire table and if it finds something wonky it'll freeze it. A "vacuum freeze" would be over kill and might freeze a bunch of stuff that isnt broken. (It wouldn't hurt to freeze it, but I have enough IO at the moment and just wanna fix whats broken). For now I'm only doing vacuum's, so hopefully that's enough. Thanks for the help. -Andy
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: