ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
Without this, very large read-only tables would require one round of
complete freezing if there are lot of transactional activities in the other
parts
of the database. And when that happens, it would generate lots of unnecessary
IOs on these large tables.
To make things worse, the freezing day comes at once because the first restore
is done in a single or near transactions; The wraparound timings of many
tables are aligned at the same time. Freezing copy will be the solution.
Hm.. Couldn't we eliminate that particular concern easily by adding some
randomness to the freeze_age?
regards, Florian Pflug
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
