On 2015-08-10 07:26:29 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 10 August 2015 at 07:14, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> > > wrote: > > > If 5) fails to bring a workable solution by the Jan 2016 CF then we > > commit > > > 2) instead. > > > > Is there actually a conflict there? I didn't think so. > > > > I didn't explain myself fully, thank you for asking. > > Having a freeze map would be wholly unnecessary if we don't ever need to > freeze whole tables again. Freezing would still be needed on individual > blocks where an old row has been updated or deleted; a freeze map would not > help there either. > > So there is no conflict, but options 2) and 3) are completely redundant if > we go for 5). After investigation, I now think 5) is achievable in 9.6, but > if I am wrong for whatever reason, we have 2) as a backstop.
I don't think that's true. You can't ever delete the clog without freezing. There's no need for anti-wraparound scans anymore, but you still need to freeze once. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
