| From: | Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Vadim Mikheev" <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
| Date: | 2001-05-21 01:28:06 |
| Message-ID: | 3.0.5.32.20010521092806.01069d40@192.228.128.13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 01:09 PM 20-05-2001 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> 3. Reusing xact IDs would be nice, but there's an answer with a lot less
>>> impact on the system: go to 8-byte xact IDs.
>
>> +8 bytes in tuple header is not so tiny thing.
>
>Agreed, but the people who need 8-byte IDs are not running small
>installations. I think they'd sooner pay a little more in disk space
>than risk costs in performance or reliability.
An additional 4 (8?) bytes per tuple to increase the "mean time before
problem " 4 billion times sounds good to me.
Cheerio,
Link.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2001-05-21 01:43:33 | RE: Updating system catalogs after a tuple deletion |
| Previous Message | mlw | 2001-05-20 22:53:08 | Index and functions |