On 27 Gen, 06:31, klep...@svana.org (Martijn van Oosterhout) wrote:
> > To repeat: If you think this may have happened DO NOT run vacuum now.Actually, for XID wraparound a VACUUM may
actuallybe the right thing.
> I looked at this (with guidence from Tom) and we came to the conclusion
> that XID wraparound will hide tuples older than 2 billion transaction,
> but VACUUM will mark as frozen anything newer than 3 billion
> transactions, so for 1 billion transactions you can actually get your
> data back.
>
> Expect for things like uniqueness guarentees, but they're solvable.
Hello,thank you all for the help.
@Andrew Dunstan: this is the first time I'm having this kind of
problem with PostgreSQL, I'm sorry I didn't provide all the needed
information.
Let me try to fill in something:
- the postgresql version is 8.1.4-1
- as far as I know, nothing happened to the machine. I work near
Milan, my customer is from something between Rome and Tuscany. It
would be a long jurney to retrieve a PC that he surely won't give us.
- The server logs... huh? Never heard of them... or better, never
needed. Where can I find them?
There is even a more foolish explanation to all of this, but my
customer denied this happened:
in my program it is possible to deactivate the auto-save function of
the work done. Without this option the user has to click himself the
button to store the data on the database... so it could even be that
I'm trying to find data that has never even been saved.
Anyway this teaches me that I have to put logs in my programs to trace
every single time the users change settings.
Bye,
Daniele
