Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of jue ene 13 00:05:53 -0300 2011: > > Srini Raghavan wrote: > > > Thank you very much for reviewing, appreciate the feedback.? As pointed > > > out by > > > you, it is always best to test it out with the latest version, so, I > > > tested the > > > same approach with postgres 9.0.2 on windows just now, and it works! > > > > > > > > > I forgot to mention earlier that in addition to setting > > > vacuum_freeze_table_age > > > to 0, vacuum_freeze_min_age must also be set to 0 to reset xmin with the > > > FrozenXid. > > > > I wonder if you should be using VACUUM FREEZE instead of having to set > > variables. > > The documentation says you shouldn't: > > FREEZE > Selects aggressive "freezing" of tuples. Specifying FREEZE is equivalent to > performing VACUUM with the vacuum_freeze_min_age parameter set to zero. The > FREEZE option is deprecated and will be removed in a future release; set the > parameter instead. > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/sql-vacuum.html
I didn't know that. I added the -z(freeze) option to vacuumdb in 8.4 for use by pg_upgrade. I think the original idea was that people should never need to freeze anything, but it turns out pg_upgrade and this user need it so maybe depricating is not a good idea. I guess pg_upgrade could call vacuumdb with a PGOPTIONS flag to force a vacuum_freeze_min_age value. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
