On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2013-10-24 17:17:22 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 10/24/2013 04:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> >> On 10/23/2013 09:58 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >>> I wonder why anyone would like to freeze during CLUSTER command when >> >>> they already have separate way (VACUUM FREEZE) to achieve it, do you >> >>> know or can think of any case where user wants to do it along with >> >>> Cluster command? >> >> >> >> "If I'm rewriting the table anyway, let's freeze it". >> >> >> >> Otherwise, you have to write the same pages twice, if both CLUSTER and >> >> FREEZE are required. >> > >> > I wonder if we should go so far as to make this the default behavior, >> > instead of just making it an option. >> >> +1 from me. Can you think of a reason you *wouldn't* want to freeze? > > It makes content from the future appear when you start using the > relation in a query/session with an older snapshot. Currently CLUSTER is > safe against that.
Eh, what? We wouldn't freeze XIDs that don't precede RecentGlobalXmin. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
