2009/10/16 Robert Haas :
> The fact that this is order-sensitive is just a trap for the unwary
> anyway. I wonder if we ought to implement a flexible options syntax
> like we did for EXPLAIN and COPY, though since I don't know of any new
> options that are needed here maybe it's not worth it.
>
>
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> This is either a bug in vacuumdb with it not using the correct order,
>> or postgres shouldn't be paying attention to the order of the
>> keywords. In any case, it doesn't work. I've searched the postgres
>> FAQs,
2009/10/16 Heikki Linnakangas :
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> Thanks Heikki. You probably already know, but remember to prevent it
>> using FREEZE at all for 8.5+ as according to the documentation it's
>> being deprecated.
>
> It's been documented as deprecated since 8.2, in favor of the
> vacuum_freeze_
Thom Brown wrote:
> Thanks Heikki. You probably already know, but remember to prevent it
> using FREEZE at all for 8.5+ as according to the documentation it's
> being deprecated.
It's been documented as deprecated since 8.2, in favor of the
vacuum_freeze_max_age option. However, it's still widely
2009/10/16 Heikki Linnakangas :
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> This is either a bug in vacuumdb with it not using the correct order,
>> or postgres shouldn't be paying attention to the order of the
>> keywords. In any case, it doesn't work. I've searched the postgres
>> FAQs, TODO and mailing list archiv
Thom Brown wrote:
> This is either a bug in vacuumdb with it not using the correct order,
> or postgres shouldn't be paying attention to the order of the
> keywords. In any case, it doesn't work. I've searched the postgres
> FAQs, TODO and mailing list archives, but can't find a mention of
> this
2009/10/16 Thom Brown :
> Hi,
>
> I've noticed I can't run vacuumdb with ALL FULL VERBOSE and FREEZE.
>
> The error returned is:
>
> vacuumdb: vacuuming of database "killingcupid.co.uk" failed: ERROR:
> syntax error at or near "FREEZE"
> LINE 1: VACUUM FULL VERBOSE FREEZE;
>
> The commands I used a
That did the trick. Thanks.
Kind regards,
Harco
Tom Lane wrote:
Harco de Hilster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
(gdb) bt
#0 MemoryContextAlloc (context=0x8b3a10, size=4294967292) at mcxt.c:505
#1 0x004e06f9 in lazy_vacuum_rel (onerel=0x2a955ecbd8,
vacstmt=0x8bf390) at vacuumlazy
Harco de Hilster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (gdb) bt
> #0 MemoryContextAlloc (context=0x8b3a10, size=4294967292) at mcxt.c:505
> #1 0x004e06f9 in lazy_vacuum_rel (onerel=0x2a955ecbd8,
> vacstmt=0x8bf390) at vacuumlazy.c:963
What do you have maintenance_work_mem set to? If it's la
On Thursday 26 December 2002 06:09 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> Is it likely that someone else was doing the same thing in another
> session?
no ANALYZE in parallel but another client constantly running transactions
(over 6 tables with approx. 20 - 100 updates/inserts per transaction).
The postgres clien
Harald Krake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> while running a "vacuumdb -z" I got the following error message:
> ERROR: simple_heap_update: tuple concurrently updated
> vacuumdb: vacuum jartifice failed
Is it likely that someone else was doing the same thing in another
session? This failure is kno
11 matches
Mail list logo
