Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>,pgsql-patches(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends
Date: 2005-07-25 04:59:01
Message-ID: 19938.1122267541@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
> I don't know either, but this brings up another question.  Stats 
> wraparound.  The n_tup_ins/upd/del columns in the stats system are 
> defined as bigint, what happens when the total number of upd for example 
> exceeds the capacity for bigint, or overflows to negative, anyone have 
> any idea?

We'll all be safely dead, for one thing ;-)

At one update per nanosecond, it'd take approximately 300 years to wrap
a 64-bit counter.  Somehow I don't have a problem with the idea that
Postgres would need to be rebooted that often.  We'd want to fix the
32-bit nature of XIDs long before 64-bit stats counters get to be a
real-world issue ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2005-07-25 07:43:07
Subject: Re: For review: Server instrumentation patch
Previous:From: Matthew T. O'ConnorDate: 2005-07-25 04:45:26
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Matthew T. O'ConnorDate: 2005-07-25 15:33:37
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends
Previous:From: Matthew T. O'ConnorDate: 2005-07-25 04:45:26
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group