Re: [ADMIN] postgres 6.2 vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hornyak Laszlo
Subject Re: [ADMIN] postgres 6.2 vacuum
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.21.0309250818410.1830-100000@tiger.tigrasoft.hu
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [ADMIN] postgres 6.2 vacuum  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [ADMIN] postgres 6.2 vacuum
Re: [ADMIN] postgres 6.2 vacuum
List pgsql-hackers
I think it is not that simple. How should I explain the company leaders
why I must stop the system. It may risk their bussiness success too. I can
tell them that the new db is more stable, but until the old one does the
job, it is still acceptable for them (it served the system for 5-6 years
or so). Once it crashes, it is a good reason to do the move.

Laszlo

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> 
> I wonder if we should have an auto-responder so when someone says they
> are running 6.5, we can reply --- Yikes, upgrade.
> 
> In fact, we could go with a little chart:
> 
>     7.3.4    great
>     7.3.0-3 please upgrade, it is easy
>     7.2    consider upgrading
>     7.1    wow, that is old
>     7.0    you need an upgrade, pal
>     <=6.5    run, don't walk, to the nearest PostgreSQL ftp server
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Hornyak Laszlo wrote:
> > 
> > Yes, at the end we did the port at night, and in the morning the system
> > started without any problem. Some of the dumps from pg 6.2 was not realy
> > acceptable by 7.3, but it was easy to fix.
> > 
> > Thank you for your help!
> > 
> > Laszlo Hornyak
> > 
> > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Hornyak Laszlo wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hi all!
> > > > 
> > > > We have a database on postgreSQL 6.2 and it is extremely slow, so we
> > > > started vacuum on it. I know it locks the tables, so clients can not use
> > > > it until the process is finished, but it is extremely slow on a 1.800.000
> > > > record table and we don't know how to make it faster. Can anybody help me?
> > > > 
> > > > It seems it is writing an index file, but it grows very slowly.
> > > > 
> > > > I know we should use 7.3 at least, we are working on it, but we need to
> > > > survive this day with 6.2 :(
> > > 
> > > In all honesty, it'd probably be faster to convert than to wait for that 
> > > vacuum to finish.
> > > 
> > > seriously.  
> > > 
> > > 6.2 is like the model A of Postgresql versions.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> >     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
> > 
> 
> -- 
>   Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
>   pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
>   +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
>   +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
> 



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Maurício Paiva
Date:
Subject: pgsql procedures??
Next
From: Zak Greant
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL not ACID compliant?