On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 10:34:51AM -0500, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> Anyone think it might be reasonable to add a GUC option that tells
> autovacuum to monitor for wraparound only, and not for more general
> usage based vacuuming? Something like autovac_wraparound_only. Not
> sure I like the
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Anyone think it might be reasonable to add a GUC option that tells
>> autovacuum to monitor for wraparound only, and not for more general
>> usage based vacuuming? Something like autovac_wraparound_only. Not
>> sure I like the idea, but thought
Anyone think it might be reasonable to add a GUC option that tells
autovacuum to monitor for wraparound only, and not for more general
usage based vacuuming? Something like autovac_wraparound_only. Not
sure I like the idea, but thought it might be worth some discussion.
I believe 8.1 will
Jaime Casanova wrote:
But if VACUUM fixes the wraparound issue, shouldn't even a badly
configured autovacuum make the wraparound not be a problem in 8.1? Or did
I miss understand how this works?
but you can disable autovacuum (i do not why you can do something like
that but i guess someone
On 12/27/05, Lic. Martin Marques wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > This might be a good time to press your buddy to move to 8.1 ;-)
> > PG 8.1 contains logic that should positively prevent a wraparound, by
> > shutting down the server if wraparound gets too close.
>
that was m
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
This might be a good time to press your buddy to move to 8.1 ;-)
PG 8.1 contains logic that should positively prevent a wraparound, by
shutting down the server if wraparound gets too close.
But if VACUUM fixes the wraparound issue, shouldn't even a badly
c
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> The only issue I can think of is that constraints might be violated
> (duplicate keys in unique index) because one of the records might have
> been invisible when the second was created...
More generally, application-driven updates of derived data might be
wrong b
On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 04:11:49PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> yes, it seems that's enough...
>
> i was trying to help to a buddy in the spanish list and my first
> recommendation was to copy all data directory... when he tries that he
> makes a vacuum and the data go back...
>
> i told him to
On 12/26/05, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 03:21:03PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> > Hi, can someone point me where is explained how can i recover from a
> > wraparound that vanish all databases in a cluster?
>
> Some recent investigation indicates that simply doing a V
On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 03:21:03PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> Hi, can someone point me where is explained how can i recover from a
> wraparound that vanish all databases in a cluster?
Some recent investigation indicates that simply doing a VACUUM on the
databases in question should bring the d
10 matches
Mail list logo
