| From: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum |
| Date: | 2003-10-17 14:11:38 |
| Message-ID: | 3F8FF89A.9050706@persistent.co.in |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 07:04:45PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>
>
>>And if pg_autovacuum is running along with postmaster all the time, with
>>aggressive polling like 5 sec, the database should not accumulate any dead
>>tuples nor it would suffer xid wraparound as there are vacuum happening
>>constantly.
>
>
> The database can suffer XID wraparound anyway if there's at least one
> table without updates, because the autovacuum daemon will never vacuum
> it (correct me if I'm wrong).
>
If a table is never updated and hence not vacuumed at all, why would it be
involved in a transaction that would have xid wrap around?
pg_autovacuum takes care of insert/updates/deletes. If a table never
participates in above three and hence escape from pg_autovauum, it also escapes
from xid wraparound, isn't it?
Shridhar
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2003-10-17 14:20:14 | Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2003-10-17 14:06:05 | Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum |